The Tribunal decides if a citizenship application was made when the documents were posted by the applicant or when they were processed by the agency.
Is this applicant capable of understanding the nature of her citizenship application or should she be exempt from sitting the citizenship exam?
In this decision, the AAT had to decide if a husband’s character satisfied the requirements for Australian citizenship.
The applicant sought a review of a refusal of his application to become a citizen by descent. The decision was remitted for reconsideration with the direction that his eligibility stemmed from an adopted parent being an Australian citizen.
The AAT had to decide whether an Iraqi woman with a psychiatric condition could complete her citizenship test.
The applicant sought an extension of time on their citizen application. The AAT found the applicant did not meet the general residence requirements and therefore would likely not have succeeded on a full merits-based hearing.
The AAT considered if extensive traffic related offences were a basis for finding a person was not of good character.
The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to refuse Australian citizenship to the applicant finding he did not pass the character due to his past conduct.
The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to refuse to grant Australia citizenship to the applicant. The applicant did not satisfy the general residence requirement because they were an unlawful citizen a year prior to their application.
The AAT set aside the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to refuse to grant Australian citizenship to the applicant. The primary issue was whether the AAT was satisfied of the applicant's identity.
The Department refused the applicant’s citizenship application because he did not satisfy the requirement to have a close and continuing association with Australia while overseas. The AAT found the applicant’s connection with Australia during his time away was more consistent with being a regular visitor rather than a resident and affirmed the decision.
The applicant’s citizenship application was refused due to a finding he failed to satisfy the residence requirement after extended absences overseas. The applicant was employed by an Australian University and submitted his absences were due to his work. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection cancelled the applicant's citizenship approval when the applicant failed to complete the citizenship process in the appropriate period. The applicant lodged an appeal to the AAT out of time. The AAT allowed an extension of time to hear the merits of the case.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant’s citizenship application because they were not satisfied of the applicant's identity after she could not produce a birth certificate. The AAT remitted the matter to the Department.