Zalaf and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mr Zalaf against the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Zalaf did not meet the general residence requirement under section 21(2)(c) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth) due to extended periods of absence from Australia in the four years immediately preceding his application. The dispute centred on whether the Minister's discretion under section 22(9) of the Act could be exercised to treat his periods of absence as periods of presence in Australia as a permanent resident.

The court was required to determine two key issues. Firstly, whether Mr Zalaf had a "close and continuing association with Australia" during his periods of absence from Australia in the four years prior to his citizenship application, as required by section 22(9)(d) of the Act. Secondly, if such an association was established, whether the Ministerial discretion under section 22(9) should be exercised to deem his periods of absence as periods of presence in Australia as a permanent resident.

The court reasoned that while Mr Zalaf had strong family ties to Australia, including an Australian citizen wife and children, and expressed an intention to reside permanently in Australia, these factors alone were insufficient to demonstrate a "close and continuing association with Australia" for the purposes of the Act. The court noted that the applicant's presence in Australia over the preceding 11 years had been limited to approximately one year, with only a three-month period of residence. The court found that the applicant's stated need to visit elderly parents in Kuwait and his desire for an Australian passport to facilitate travel did not, in the context of his limited physical presence and community involvement in Australia, establish the necessary close and continuing association.

Consequently, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Mr Zalaf had a "close and continuing relationship with Australia" in the four years prior to his citizenship application. As such, the requirement to enliven the discretion under section 22(9)(d) of the Act was not met. The decision under review was affirmed.