1. I have referred briefly above to the key legislative provisions. A series of general eligibility requirements are set out in s 21(2) of the Act. These include the capacity to understand the nature of the application for Australian citizenship, to possess a basic knowledge of English, and to have an adequate knowledge of Australia, and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship (s 21(2)(d), (e) and (f)). As noted, testing requirements are set out in s 21(2A) of the Act. The Australian Citizenship (LIN 20/085: Approval of a Citizenship Test) Determination 2020 (the Determination) sets out a number of matters concerning the nature and conduct of the test.
2. Under the Act, a person may also be deemed eligible for Australian citizenship where they have a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity at the time they made their application (s 21(3)). This incapacity must be such that the person is not capable of understanding the nature of the application, is not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of English or demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
3. A set of Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) have been developed to provide guidance to decision makers, and - conventionally - these should also be considered and applied by the Tribunal unless in conflict with the legislation. CPI 2 addresses permanent or enduring incapacity. It provides that incapacity must be assessed on the basis of a report from a specialist [6]. It also defines 'permanent' as being where there is no predicted recovery, or a recovery that is long-term [6.2].
4. CPI 26 address the citizenship test. It provides that a person is eligible to sit an assisted test where they have low literacy skills measured by completion of at least 400 hours of English language tuition under the Adult Migrant English Program, or has a physical or cognitive impairment (permanent or temporary) that prevents them sitting the standard test even with the assistance of the test administrator [4.4]. These criteria are drawn from the Determination.

1. The two issues arising in this matter are whether Ms Afzally has satisfied the requirements under s 21(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Act, and - if not - whether she has an enduring physical or mental incapacity in the sense required for s 21(3) of the Act.

1. The Applicant is a citizen of Afghanistan who arrived in Australia in 2013 (T29). Drawing on a letter or statement from Mr Afzally and medical records provided by the Applicant from Logan Hospital (Exhibit A1), and Mr Afzally's evidence at the hearing, I note the following background:

(a) Ms Afzally was wounded in the leg in a shooting incident in Afghanistan in either 1992 or 1994, apparently leading to a coma and a three-week period of hospitalisation; > > (b) she appears also to have been diagnosed in Afghanistan with epilepsy, and due to cultural factors and issues with interpretation, it is not clear whether this was due to an organic or a psychiatric cause; > > (c) Ms Afzally has been prescribed medication in the past for this condition which may have been prohibited in Australia, or otherwise superseded; > > (d) she was assessed in Australia in late 2013 for possible epilepsy associated with a pregnancy then underway, as symptoms had increased, and Ms Afzally may have previously experienced these symptoms at a lesser frequency from around the age of 14 or 15 years; > > (e) after treatment in Australia, it was considered Ms Afzally may possibly have temporal lobe epilepsy and an overlying anxiety component; > > (f) further neurological opinion indicated that her symptoms of seizure were 'presyncopal' (meaning a feeling of faintness without losing consciousness) but not epilepsy; > > (g) a treating GP advised that the Applicant was treated for epilepsy since 2014 and continued on medication for her condition; and > > (h) Mr Afzally described the daily medication regime and stated that if his wife misses her medication for ½ a day, she completely changes, and moreover she had been losing her memory over the past years.

2. Mr Afzally was asked about his wife's citizenship application. He stated that he was confused about the question addressing physical or mental incapacity, and 'didn't tick that box'. He stated that he did ask for assistance with the test. Mr Afzally stated his wife cannot read or write English and has difficulty hearing a computer generated voice.
3. Mr Afzally described numerous instances in which the Applicant has collapsed. Prior to 2018-2019 it was happening multiple times a day, reducing to 1-2 times per week. When she is medicated, Mr Afzally stated that it occurs every week or two. He reiterated that she has become more forgetful over the past couple of years.
4. The Applicant agreed that she had taken the citizenship test on multiple occasions. She described preparing for it at home and achieving pass results in this environment, but was unable to pass at the actual test. She put this down to forgetfulness.
5. Ms Afzally stated that she still experiences seizures when medicated and is particularly sensitive to light. The Applicant stated she had not seen a specialist about her condition for a few years. She explained that she currently experiences problems once or twice a week. Ms Afzally can feel this 'coming on' and she is concerned about falling, so she just sits down and doesn't move.
6. I asked Ms Afzally about her childcare responsibilities. She responded that she 'is not saying she is unwell 24/7' and some days she can take the children out or cook. She has not seen a doctor about memory loss, and neither for anxiety, although she 'knows' she has it.
7. She stated that she used to drive when working but was presently at home, and had obtained her licence 4-5 years ago. I understood her to say she had not driven for the past two years and she had not worked in her role as a casual school cleaner for over a year. Mr Afzally added that his wife's licence was suspended for some years while she was undergoing treatment, and she did not regain it until 2021. He understood a specialist to have told Mrs Afzally she can drive if she has not experienced a seizure for three months. He is worried about her driving, and accordingly he had driven the children to school.
8. Mr Afzally also added that for 6-7 years he has helped the Applicant in the shower, but denied obtaining any home help or domestic support. He stated that his wife's condition did not prevent her returning to cleaning work after Covid-19, and she last worked in December 2023.
9. Ms Afzally's sister stated in evidence that she has only been in Australia for about six months, but had seen her sister collapse. She understood the Applicant to have epilepsy and also considered her to be forgetful.

1. I note the summary of test results in the RSFIC [39]. It indicates Ms Afzally has attempted the citizenship test on 14 occasions on five different days, delivering varied results across that time between 40% and as much as 80%, but not necessarily with a consistently improving score.
2. I note also the Applicant's participation in the Adult English Migrant Program through TAFE Queensland (Exhibit A1) and that she is described as completing 'approximately 400 hours'. This contrasts with a record provided by the Respondent from government systems indicating that Ms Afzally has completed only 325.5 hours.
3. The Applicant's citizenship application form (T4) records that she does not suffer from hearing, speech or sight loss, and does not have a permanent physical or mental incapacity, meaning she is not capable of understanding the nature of the application. The same form does record a request for assistance to pass the citizenship test, and her low English literacy skills are also identified here.

1. In his letter or statement, Mr Afzally, as already noted above, stresses his wife's medical history in Afghanistan as well as her reliance upon medication now. He describes issues with her memory and emphasises the amount of time that has been committed to studying in preparation for the citizenship test. At the hearing, Mr Afzally stated that coming from Afghanistan, the requirement to be able to read and write in order to learn the ways of the government was too much for the Applicant. He has been encouraging her to learn English and assisting her to get out of the house. He also emphasised the challenges his wife faces in not being able to travel out of Australia on her present visa.
2. At the hearing, the Respondent noted that the Tribunal may consider the question of permanent incapacity under s 21(3) of the Act. However, there is no independent expert evidence of Ms Afzally's condition at the time of her application in 2018. Further, any evidence must speak to her capacity to undertake the test. While it appears Ms Afzally has experienced seizures in Australia, she is medicated for this, and there is also no relevant evidence demonstrating how any ongoing issues relate to the potential impact on testing.
3. The Respondent noted that the evidence indicates Ms Afzally could complete the test within time and also that she is not eligible for the assisted test, due to not undertaking 400 hours of language training.
4. It appears to me on the evidence overall that Ms Afzally has not completed sufficient English language training to be eligible for the assisted citizenship test. Clearly enough, she has not yet completed the standard test, and therefore has been unable to satisfy s 21(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Act.
5. As noted above, under the Direction, as also restated in CPI 26, Ms Afzally may seek to establish that she has a temporary or permanent impairment that prevent her sitting the standard test. One issue with the evidence here is that she has in fact demonstrated the capacity to sit the test multiple times per day, and has (on her last attendance in September 2024) shown the capacity to achieve a result of 80% (from an initial test result of 55% on the same day).
6. Another issue here relates to the nature of the medical evidence I have before me. The best material is from Logan Hospital but this is over ten years old, and is somewhat inconclusive. It remains unclear exactly what the Applicant's condition is, and it remains unclear how severe its impact is and - importantly - what it is about her condition that has a relevant bearing on her capacity to take the citizenship test. Again, I note that she has attended and completed the citizenship test on numerous occasions.
7. The further issue arising is that this mixed evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that Ms Afzally had a permanent physical or mental impairment at the time of her application in 2018. For this reason, I am unable to apply the provision in s 21(3) of the Act that could permit me to find that she has an incapacity that so affects her capacity to test that it means she cannot satisfy the requirements of s 21(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Act.
8. I do have before me some credible evidence from the family that Ms Afzally is affected by her condition. I am a little uncertain how serious her situation is. I am also uncertain exactly how this relates to her testing ability. If in fact Ms Afzally has another condition relating to her memory, or perhaps her cognitive ability, there is certainly no medical evidence before me that would allow me to take that into account.
9. For these reasons, I am unable to make a decision that Ms Afzally meets the requirements set out in s 21(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Act and her application does not succeed.

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.