(a) The Applicant said his wife in Afghanistan is 'critically ill' and 'urgently requires life-saving treatment that could only be accessed in Pakistan'. The Applicant's motivation for citizenship centres on obtaining an Australian passport, which would make it easier for him to travel overseas and assist his wife.[10] > > (b) The Applicant also referred to his 'own medical condition (from an industrial injury)', which he invokes as the reason why he miscalculated the time spent overseas.[11]

4. On 30 May 2025, the citizenship application was refused by a delegate of the Respondent.[12]
5. On 26 June 2025, the Applicant sought review of the citizenship refusal decision.[13] In a section titled 'Why do you claim the decision is wrong?', it was stated on his behalf:

The decision maker ignored the SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP and DISADVANTAGE to Abdul Raoof that is being caused by his inability to travel to Pakistan to arrange for his wife to travel there from Afghanistan to receive treatment for her recurrent Oesophagael Cancer. She is recommended to travel there for comprehensive cancer treatment at the hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. All other medical options in Afghanistan and Iran have been exhausted. Abdul Raoof cannot enter Pakistan without Australian Citizenship. The Pakistani Embassy will not issue a visa to someone with a "Refugee Passport/Titre de Voyage" which is what he has. They will only give visas to Australian Citizens. Oesophagael Cancer is incredibly serious and it is absolute MENTAL TORTURE for Abdul Raoof not to be able to help her from Australia to get the treatment she needs, but instead see her slowly deteriorate, most probably die, and leave his 5 children motherless, in another country where he is unable to help. Abdul Raoof ... had to flee the country, having been delegated an enemy of the Taliban, and now has to try to provide support and care to his family over there from here. His service to the security of Australia in this respect has been ignored. As a woman under the Taliban, his wife is unable to travel under her own auspices, nor arrange a visa for herself. Her husband must do that for her, as well as give her 'his permission" to travel. Abdul Raoof also suffered a severe work injury while being gainfully employed in Australia, leading to a brain injury with memory loss, and spinal injury. He has been here for 12 years. Dealing with MEMORY LOSS, STRESS, a 4TH LANGUAGE, a DIFFERENT ALPHABET and a DIFFERENT CALENDAR resulted in an error of 11 days over 365 while he was accompanying his wife and children in Iran for his wife's first episode of significant treatment of the oesophagael cancer. > > (Emphasis and errors in original.)

1. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act is the source of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review this application.
2. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. To succeed, they must meet eligibility requirements. Section 21(3) of the Act is relevant to the Applicant's circumstances as someone claiming to have a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity. Several conjunctive requirements must be met:

Permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity

(3) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

(a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and

(i) at the time the person made the application; and

(ii) at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and

(b) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and

(d) has a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, at the time the person made the application, that means the person:

(i) is not capable of understanding the nature of the application at that time; or

(ii) is not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; or

(iii) is not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time; and

(e) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and

(f) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.

1. The following is required to satisfy the general residence requirement under s 22 of the Act:

(1) Subject to this section, for the purposes of section 21 a person satisfies the general residence requirement if:

(a) the person was present in Australia for the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and

(b) the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at any time during that 4 year period; and

(c) the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application.

(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and

(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 12 months;

then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the person is taken to have been present in Australia during each period of absence.

(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application; and

(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 90 days; and

(c) the person was a permanent resident during each period of absence;

then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the person is taken to have been present in Australia as a permanent resident during each period of absence.

1. The Ministerial discretions set out in ss 22(4A), (5), (5A), (6), (9), (10) or (11) of the Act provide for specific circumstances relevant to assessing if an applicant meets the general residence requirement. The Applicant has sought an exercise of discretion under s 22(6) of the Act, which states:

Ministerial discretion--person in Australia would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage > > (6) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if: > > (a) the person was present in Australia during that period (except as a permanent resident or an unlawful non - citizen); and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied that the person will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if that period were not treated as one during which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident.

2. Sections 22A and 22B of the Act state that an applicant may satisfy the special residence requirement if engaged in a specified activity of benefit to Australia, or in a specified kind of work requiring them to regularly travel outside of Australia. Section 22C(3) of the Act confers power on the Minister to specify kinds of work for the purposes of s 22B(1)(a) of the Act. The Australian Citizenship (special residence requirement) Instrument (LIN 21/069) 2021, enacted by the Minister on 11 October 2021, defines 'specified kinds of work' for the purposes of s 22B(1)(a) of the Act.
3. Section 24(1) of the Act provides:

If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

Note: The Minister may cancel an approval: see section 25.

1. Section 24(1A) of the Act provides that 'The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible ... under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8)'.
2. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) (reissued 1 January 2022) contain government policy intended to guide decision-makers who exercise powers under the Act. The Tribunal is not bound by government policy[14] but as held in Drake,[15] should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or 'there are cogent reasons to the contrary.' The Tribunal has not identified any reason why the policies within the CPI should not be applied but does not do so inflexibly.
3. In relation to the Ministerial discretion at s 22(6) of the Act, paragraph 4.7.4 of CPI 8 states:

Under subsection 22(6) of the Act, periods of lawful residence, other than permanent residence, can be treated as periods of permanent residence for the purpose of meeting the 12 month permanent resident requirement if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if those periods were not treated as periods of permanent residence. > > Note: periods of residence outside Australia as the holder of a temporary visa, cannot be treated as periods of permanent residence for the purposes of the ministerial discretion. This is because paragraph 22(6)(a) of the Act requires the applicant to be present in Australia during the 12 month period.

1. The issue to be decided is whether the Applicant satisfies either the general residence requirement at s 22(1) of the Act, or one of the partial exemptions or ministerial discretions, or the special residence requirements at ss 22A or 22B, or the Defence service requirement at s 23 at the time he made his citizenship application.

1. The Tribunal has considered the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) [16] dated 16 January 2026.
2. The following documents were taken into evidence at the hearing:

(a) Documents from the Respondent numbering 246 pages;[17] > > (b) Five-page statement of the Applicant dated 12 December 2025;[18] > > (c) List of Applicant's medications as of 28 August 2025;[19] > > (d) Letter dated 8 August 2025 from psychiatrist Dr George Camilleri;[20] > > (e) Letter dated 14 August 2025 from rehabilitation physician Dr Damian Daniel;[21] and > > (f) Letter dated 28 August 2025 from occupational therapist Ms Miranda Brujn.[22]

1. In Exhibit A1 the Applicant claims he miscalculated his return to Australia by 11 days because of the effects of severe work-related injuries and caring responsibilities for his family in Iran while his wife was receiving medical treatment. The Applicant's work-related injury claims date back to his employment as a panel beater from October 2017.[23] Some three months later, on 31 January 2018, he was noted to have 'slipped and fell down' at work injuring 'his right shoulder and back'. The Applicant sought medical assistance[24] and has not returned to work since. He has instead variously relied on workers compensation, income support, and other payments. A summary of claims in Exhibit A1 follows:

(a) The Applicant contends that he sustained 'a permanent brain injury' and other physical and mental effects on 31 January 2018 that rendered him permanently unfit for work. He also attributes this incident to causing him to lose the 'ability to read and write', loss of 'partial vision in one eye and most of the vision in the other eye'. The Applicant refers in his evidence to applications for a Disability Support Pension and funding package under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). > > (b) The Applicant refers to his memory being 'atrocious ever since' 31 January 2018 and to have bern 'heavily medicated' to deal with pain and depression. > > (c) The Applicant claims his wife was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in 2022, following which he travelled to Iran to help her access treatment. He refers to arranging Iranian visas to facilitate his family's travel to Iran while concurrently stating they 'were smuggled to the border... into Iran', followed by 'a year's (sic) cancer treatment'. The Applicant states he miscalculated the date of his return to Australia because of his comorbidities and stressful family events: > > A year later it was believed the cancer had been conquered, and I made arrangements to fly back to Australia, and did so. Perhaps even the most unfortunately of all, because of my brain injury, my extremely heavily medicated state from the massive amount of pain killers and psychotropic antidepressants, the stress of my wife's cancer and a year of treatments, doing my best to look after my five children while she was receiving these treatments, and dealing with a fourth language (Persian), a third alphabet, and a completely different calendar...also not being able actually to remember the day I left Australia, because of the memory problems I have been left with from the brain injury, I miscalculated the date and arrived back in Australia 11 days after the 365 day limit. (This is the limit for not having been out of Australia for more than 365 days in the previous 4 years, for the purposes of Citizenship applications.) > > (Errors in original) > > (d) The Applicant claims his wife's oesophageal cancer returned in 2024 and although doctors in Afghanistan tried to assist her, they 'feel that all treatment options in Iran have been exhausted and recommend that she go to the Shaukat Khan um Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre in Lahore, Pakistan for treatment'. The Applicant further states: > > Unfortunately...as a woman under the Taliban, [wife's name redacted] is not allowed to travel under her own auspices, and I have to get to Pakistan myself and arrange the visa for her travel and entry, and treatment for her. Unfortunately again, the Pakistani consulate had put in writing that they do not allow entry into Pakistan on Australian Refugee Travel Documents or identity papers. Visas for entry are issued on valid Australian Passports only, and only Australian Citizens are able to obtain Australian passports... > > (e) The Applicant contends he should be granted an exemption from the general residence requirement because of 'undue hardship and disadvantage' and that failure to do so constitutes discrimination relating to his 'disability': > > ...an administrative discriminatory error by the Government not accepting that this miscalculation was due to my brain injury. People without a brain injury such as mine are able to calculate such things easily, but help was not provided for me....I believe that refusal by the Commonwealth department assessing my application for Citizenship comes under the category of "administrative error" in that they ignored the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 sections 5, 6, 11 and 24 in ignoring my disability and in treating me as a regular member of the public who does not have a disability, and who would be fully able to calculate the required days and dates for returning to Australia within the 365 day time limit. > > (f) The Applicant submits that citizenship refusal also 'contravenes the Australian Human Rights Act' and cites a case by 'the High Court of Australia in 2022...Davis v. Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, and v. Orrs, referring to the Minister's powers to make decisions re Ministerial Interventions, that the migration laws are too broad and do not allow enough for individual variation and circumstances'. This case was not handed up during the hearing nor further advanced. The Tribunal infers that the authority intended to be relied upon is Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Ors [2023] HCA 10 (Davis). > > (g) The Applicant contends that 'technicalities' alone have impeded him from satisfying an exemption or discretion relating to the general residence requirement.

1. In a statement dated 16 February 2025, the Applicant sought Ministerial waiver of the general residence requirement while concurrently referring to his inability to pass the citizenship test:[25]

On the 31st of January 2018, I was hospitalised at Sunshine Hospital following a severe head injury sustained in my workplace. My cognitive mental abilities have been severely impacted, and can no longer read or write. I have been seeing psychiatrist Dr George Camilleri for several years, and he has noted my poor memory following the injury and its impact on my capacity to learn English... > > Dr Roozbeh Malekzadeh, my regular general practitioner, has reported on my severe neck, shoulder, lower back, and right leg pain, as well as headaches, and has also concluded there is no prospect of improvement. I have attached her letter which notes my condition has affected me constantly for six years. > > Dr Damien Daniel, specialist rehabilitation physician, has confirmed my experience of reduced memory, and the possible impact of my psychotropic medications. I have attached his letter which states his concerns about my ability to pass a citizenship test as a result of these impacts. > > My wife, [name redacted], resides in Afghanistan and is currently suffering from oesophageal carcinoma. In November of 2022, I travelled to Iran to support my wife while she underwent treatment. Due to the psychological stress of my wife's cancer, the demands of caring for our five young children, our lack of family support, and the influence of my strong medications, I confused the departure date and was in Iran for 376 days instead of the maximum of 365. It is on this basis that my previous application was refused. > > This treatment was unsuccessful due to the poor quality of the medical care she received, and a recent medical examination has shown that the cancer persists. The attached letter from my wife's doctor in Afghanistan attests to this. > > [Wife's name redacted] requires further treatment as soon as possible. The closest available option for her is the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre in Lahore, Pakistan. It is highly unlikely that will be issued a visa to travel to Pakistan without an Australian passport. My wife's health situation is extremely time-sensitive and I need to be able to travel to Pakistan as soon as possible. > > Both my wife...and I will suffer tremendous psychological hardship if I am unable to accompany her to Pakistan for treatment, especially in light of my existing mental health challenges. These include the pain of separation from my family, and the debilitating aftermath of my injury. > > Australian citizenship will allow me to obtain an Australian passport and Pakistan visa so I can travel to Pakistan and support my wife and children through this time of health crisis. > > Sincerely, > > Abdul Raoof Alikhail > > (Errors in original.)

2. The Applicant's April 2025 citizenship application was prepared and submitted by a lawyer.[26] This states that he visited Pakistan for about two months in 2018 and Iran between November 2022 and November 2023 to 'visit family'.[27] There is no reference to the purpose of this visit being to facilitate medical care for his wife. The Applicant referred in his citizenship application to parents, 11 adult siblings, and three children (two sons and a daughter), who were then between 13 and 24 years of age and living in Afghanistan.[28] In other evidence, however, he has stated that he has five children in Afghanistan. In written submissions lodged by his lawyer a 'Special Circumstances' exemption is requested from the Minister on the following grounds:

Mr. Alikhail's wife...who is still in Afghanistan, is critically ill with Oesophageal Cancer and urgently requires life-saving treatment that can only be accessed at the Comprehensive Cancer Hospital in Lahor, Pakistan. (Previous treatment at a lesser hospital in Iran during 2022-2023 has unfortunately proven to have been ultimately unsuccessful.) As a woman under the Taliban, [she] is unable to travel under her own recognisance, and Mr Alikhail is required to travel to Pakistan first to arrange a visa for her, and then give her his "permission" to travel. As her primary (and male) caregiver, Mr. Alikhail must accompany her within Pakistan to provide essential support during her treatment. > > Unfortunately, due to his current status as a permanent resident, nationality as an 'Afghan' and the limitations of his travel document, the "TITRE DE VOYAGE," Mr. Alikhail is unable to obtain the necessary visa to travel safely to and within Pakistan without an Australian passport. > > ... > > However, Mr. Alikhail was unable to meet the residency requirement in full, having been out of Australia for 376 days 11 days over the 365-day limit, during [his wife's] extended cancer treatment in Iran. This extended absence was not due to neglect or disregard of Australian law, but rather the result of significant personal and familial challenges, of supporting his wife..Specifically, Mr. Alikhail was unable to return within the required timeframe due to the ongoing health crisis of his wife...and his own medical condition (from an industrial injury while gainfully employed in Australia in January, 2018, detailed below, and in attachments). > > Given the extreme urgency and humanitarian nature of this situation, we respectfully request that the residence requirement for Mr. Alikhail's citizenship application be waived under ministerial discretion, in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), which allows the Minister to exercise discretion in exceptional cases, particularly where the applicant has demonstrated a genuine commitment to Australia and there are compassionate or compelling reasons for the waiver. > > (Errors in original.)

3. There is no direct evidence from the Applicant's wife, other family members, or the hospital in Iran that purportedly treated her for about a year in 2022 and 2023. The Applicant relies solely on two letters purporting to be from different hospitals in Kabul Afghanistan as follows:

(a) A letter dated 25 July 2022, written in English, and on letterhead stating 'Royal Medical Complex' at an address in Kabul:[29] > > To whom it may concern > > This is to certify that Miss [name redacted] a 44 years old patient presented to our Medical Department on 25 July 2022 and after proper examination and investigation she had Dysphagia and is Suspected for ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA Since her full treatment is not available here therefore the patient wants to go Iran for further evaluation and treatment, > > Hence she needs a quick emergency consultation. > > You're sincerely > > Dr Mujiburrahman [second name illegible - stamped over] > > Medical Director > > (b) A letter dated 3 May 2024, again written in English, and on letterhead from a different hospital in Kabul ('Dar-ul-sehat super spiciality [sic] hospital').[30] This is almost in the same terms as the 2022 letter from Royal Medical Complex: > > To whom it may concern > > This is to certify that Miss [name redacted] a 46 years old patient presented to our Medical Department on 3 May 2024 and after proper examination and investigation she had Dysphagia and is suspected for ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA since her full treatment is not available here therefore the patient wants to go Pakistan for further evaluation and treatment, > > Hence she needs a quick emergency consultation. > > With Best regard > > Dr. Aziz [second name illegible - stamped over] > > (c) Correspondence from the Applicant's treating physicians refer to his wife's treatment based entirely on the Applicant's self-reported claims. For example, a letter from his general practitioner dated 7 February 2024 states:[31] > > This is to certify that Mr Alikhail informed me in 2022 that his wife had been suffering from Oesophageal Carcinoma and needed to travel to Iran for treatments (A letter from a doctor at Royal Medical complex in Kabol is attached). > > Mr Alikhail went to Iran (Nov 2022) to assist his wife with her operation and post-op treatments (I assume Radiotherapy and follow up treatments). He came back to Australia (Nov 2023) when his wife treatments had finished and she had gone back to Afghanistan. > > Please consider the above in dealing with his case. > > (Errors in original.)

4. In terms of the Applicant's claims about his own medical issues, a summary of the available evidence follows:

(a) Letter from Sunshine Hospital dated 31 January 2018.[32] This states that the Applicant's 'presenting problem was INJURY - MULITIPLE SITES AFTER SLIPPING ON CONCRETE TODAY C/O[33] LOWER BACK PAIN, R) ARM PAIN L) KNEE PAIN. Reference is made to the Applicant being assisted by an interpreter. X-rays of his shoulder and cervical spine showed no fractures and the treating physician noted: 'no severe head injury signs and symptoms'. The Applicant was diagnosed with 'sprain or strain' and there is nothing in this or other reports to corroborate the claim in his statement dated 16 February 2025 that he 'was hospitalised...following a severe head injury'. Discharge instructions by the treating Registrar to the Applicant's general practitioner were to provide 'Reassurance Home pain relief Physio or LMO follow up'. > > (b) Letters dated between 3 October 2018 and 12 April 2019 from consultant psychiatrist Dr Sam Asadi. The first letter dated 3 October 2018 is brief and states the Applicant was 'to undertake an MRI study on 9 October 2018', although the part of the body to be scanned is not referred to.[34] The second letter dated 4 October 2018 to the Applicant's general practitioner sets out the Applicant's claims about the work-related incident on 31 January 2018.[35] Dr Asadi stated that his 'initial impression' is that the Applicant 'is suffering from A_djustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. It seems that his psychological condition has occurred in the context of work-related injury and chronic pain_'.[36] Dr Asadi's third letter is dated 10 December 2018. It is very brief and relates to changes in the Applicant's treatment.[37] Dr Asadi's fourth letter is dated 30 January 2019 and is again addressed to the Applicant's general practitioner.[38] It refers to recent changes in the Applicant's medication and 'limited improvement in the past few months'. Dr Asadi opines that the Applicant 'is currently unfit for any employment'. He states: 'I will assess his work capacity periodically and will inform you about any significant change in his presentation or capacity'. Dr Asadi's fifth and final letter dated 12 April 2019 provides an update on changes to the Applicant's medications.[39] > > (c) Letters dated between 25 June 2020 and 8 August 2025 from consultant psychiatrist Dr George Camilleri.[40] The Applicant was referred to Dr Camilleri by the Applicant's general practitioner. Dr Camilleri has been seeing the Applicant intermittently since 2019 for 'major depressive disorder, chronic pain and some unusual somatic symptoms'.[41] He noted the following history in a letter dated 25 June 2020: > > With the help of an interpreter he told me he was working as a panel beater...while working there he slipped and fell on the concrete. X-Ray of his back was normal, He saw his general practitioner who provided medication for pain but his back remained painful and the pain seemed to spread to his shoulder, neck, right leg as well as causing headaches. As far as | know he has never been back to work. Other symptoms include racing heart, easy startle reaction, poor sleep, shortness of breath, nightmares of being pushed and choked and being woken by pain and anxiety. I understand an MRI and CT scan have shown no abnormalities. > > Current mental state: > > Appetite is not very good. His mood is sad and depressed because of his pain and inability to sit or stand, energy levels are low, concentration is poor, memory Is poor...he is anhedonic and he feels stressed because he states 26 people in Afghanistan depend on him. > > Pat psychiatric history: > > Nil relevant > > Medical History: > > Is as previously described apart from that injury there are no current medical issues. > > (d) Following review of the Applicant on 15 November 2021, Dr Camilleri diagnosed 'somatic symptom disorder'.[42] This is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and refers to sufferers emphasising physical symptoms such as pain, weakness and shortness of breath over the absence of a medical explanation. Dr Camilleri stated in a letter dated 15 November 202:[43] > > ...his symptoms now are so chronic and entrenched that changes to his medications may only result in improvement of some symptoms rather than complete resolution of his condition. Clearly at this point he has no capacity for any form of paid work and it is unlikely that he will achieve capacity for any form of paid work in the foreseeable future. > > (e) Dr Camilleri's letter dated 21 May 2024 appears directed to the Applicant's claim that he was incapable of passing the citizenship test:[44] > > I have been the treating psychiatrist of Mr Alikhail for a few years now, and have seen him on an irregular basis when his GP requires my input. > > Mr Alikhail suffers from ongoing chronic major depressive disorder, which, despite quite assertive treatment has failed to resolve. Thus, his condition is permanent and enduring. > > He continues on medication for this condition. > > His illness causes, amongst other things, problems with low mood, poor levels of energy, poor concentration and poor memory. The overall effect is to prevent Mr Alikhail from having the capacity to learn English properly and to obtain a detailed knowledge of Australia as a country. > > There is no prospect of this situation improving in the future. > > (f) In his most recent letter dated 8 August 2025, Dr Camilleri states that 'despite quite assertive treatment' the Applicant's ongoing chronic major depressive disorder...has failed to resolve'. > > (g) A letter dated 9 May 2024 from rehabilitation physician Dr Damian Daniel focuses on the Applicant's 'chronic pain syndrome' and claim that he is unable to pass the citizenship test:[45] > > He tells me he is now a permanent resident in Australia but he can't pass his citizenship test to achieve full citizenship. He tells me this is based on the issues of his chronic pain, reduced memory and significant mental health condition. Mr Alikhail does experience all the above. He has significant pain on a constant basis that we are trying to manage on medications. He has finished his physical therapy and psychological counselling at Advance Healthcare and continues to see a psychiatrist in the community. He certainly has very significant mental health issues, both due to his injury and for other reasons will let his psychiatrist handle that. > > I was unable to do any definitive objective testing of his memory today but if he gets referred back to our psychologist here, will ask them to do some. The medications he is on are all psychotropic medications, which can affect people's memory in a negative way, making it difficult for them to sit and pass examinations. Today I added another analgesic but it was an anti-inflammatory and not psychotropic in nature. > > Therefore, I'm certainly of the opinion that Mr Alikhail's chronic pain syndrome, memory issues and significantly poor mental health issues will affect his ability to pass the citizenship test. > > (h) Dr Daniel provided letters dated 22 November 2024 and 14 August 2025 in support of the Applicant's request for a Disability Support Pension and inability to pass the citizenship test. In the first letter Dr Daniel refers to a diagnosis of 'chronic, non-specific musculoskeletal cervical, right shoulder and lower back pain'.[46] In the August 2025 letter Dr Daniel states the Applicant has 'chronic pain syndrome, memory and concentration issues, poor vision, medications and significantly poor mental health issues will affect his ability to pass the citizenship test'. > > (i) Letter dated 1 April 2025 from occupational therapist Ms Miranda Bruyn.[47] This is in the context of a referral from the Applicant's general practitioner responding to the Applicant's requests for 'Centrelink Benefits and Citizenship Application Support'. Ms Bruyn states under a section titled 'Next Steps' that the Applicant 'requires assistance to apply for the Disability Support Pension and could be considered a suitable candidate to apply for NDIS given his longstanding permanent physical and psychological conditions'. The Applicant has since applied for a support package under the NDIS.[48] In a further letter from Ms Bruyn dated 28 August 2025, the following is stated, although Ms Bruyn was not called as a witness to better establish the basis of some of the claims made: > > In summary, > > • Abdul's overstay was accidental and directly caused by his cognitive and psychological impairments. > > • All treating professionals confirm the permanence and severity of his disabilities. > > • He requires ongoing support for all major life decisions and daily planning. > > • Compassionate consideration is requested due to the significant hardship and disadvantage he faces, especially the harrowing circumstances of his wife's cancer...

1. The Applicant gave oral evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Dari language. He does not dispute that his absence from Australia in 2022/2023 exceeds the permissible 12-month absence under s 21(3)(c) of the Act in the four years prior to lodging his citizenship application. His evidence instead centres on the contention that it was 'impossible' for him to 'calculate when he had to return to Australia' because of medical and psychological comorbidities that include a 'permanent brain injury'. The Applicant also invokes his wife's continuing medical needs as a contextually relevant factor. The Applicant said he last spoke to her about two-and-a-half-weeks ago and his daughter in Afghanistan keeps him informed of her circumstances and family events.
2. The Applicant claims there is no family 'male companion' in Afghanistan to accompany his wife for further treatment, without which the Taliban will not permit her to travel. When asked by Ms Hingston about the '10 brothers' referred to in his evidence, the Applicant claimed they all 'fled to Iran for the safety of their lives' after the Taliban takeover and now live in 'Turkey, Greece, Europe'. The Tribunal notes from open-source information that the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan occurred in 2021.
3. The Applicant has not submitted any evidence from his wife nor medical evidence from the hospital in Iran that purportedly treated her. When asked by Ms Hingston which Iranian hospital it was, the Applicant could not recall. When asked by Ms Hingston if his wife was given any records from her treatment, the Applicant agreed she had these but claimed she 'dropped them somewhere'. The Applicant accepts that the only medical evidence he relies upon regarding his wife's circumstances are the two letters from hospitals in Afghanistan. When asked why these letters are in substance the same, the Applicant claimed this is what 'doctors in Kabul' gave his wife. In response to follow-on questions from Ms Hingston, the Applicant said his wife: initially sought treatment from Royal Medical Complex in Kabul in 2022; was provided with a letter from this hospital about needing treatment in Iran; returned to Afghanistan after a year of treatment in Iran; consulted with another hospital in Kabul in 2024; and was then referred for further treatment in Pakistan. He also referred to a 'brain drain' in Afghanistan 'after the [Taliban] changeover' following which experienced medical staff left the country.
4. In terms of his English-speaking and writing abilities, the Applicant said he learned some English while attending school in Afghanistan, but it was 'not that good' until he arrived in Australia and then 'got better'. He claims to have lost the ability to read or write in English because of his workplace accident on 31 January 2018.
5. During cross-examination by Ms Egbert, the Applicant confirmed he was never previously a member of any branch of the Australian Defence Force. In terms of his absence from Australia in 2022 and 2023, the Applicant said he travelled independently to Iran and accepted the accuracy of his movement records. He recalled meeting his wife in Iran after she crossed the border with Afghanistan, following which he 'took her for treatment'.

1. The Tribunal has some difficulty accepting aspects of the Applicant's evidence for the following reasons:

(a) The two letters the Applicant relies on regarding his wife's illness are about two years apart yet contain precisely the same text. There is also no evidence from the Applicant's wife or the unnamed Iranian hospital he claims treated her in 2022-23. It is expected that the year-long treatment that successfully treated her cancer in Iran would have been referred to in the May 2024 letter from the 'Dar-ul-sehat super spiciality [sic] hospital' in Kabul. This letter is instead in the same terms as the 2022 letter from the 'Royal Medical Complex'. It states that the Applicant's wife is only 'suspected' of having 'esophageal carcinoma', requiring 'further evaluation'. > > (b) The Applicant's claims about having a 'permanent brain injury' is uncorroborated by medical evidence. His responses during the hearing reflect a good recall of detail about his wife's condition and the time they spent together in Iran during 2022-23. It is noteworthy the Applicant travelled independently to and from Iran for about a year, which reflects a significant degree of autonomy. > > (c) The Applicant claims there are no male family members in Afghanistan to assist his wife's travel for treatment in Pakistan. Yet his citizenship application dated 16 April 2025, which was prepared with the assistance of a lawyer, refers to him to having a father,[49] adult son,[50] and nine brothers whose country of residence was then stated to be Afghanistan.[51] This conflicts with his oral evidence that all his brothers fled Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover in August 2021.

1. The reviewable application relates to denial of citizenship based on the general residence requirement. The Applicant seeks Ministerial waiver of this and to be excused from the citizenship test requirement because of a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity. There is no first instance decision from the Respondent relating to the latter.
2. The four-year period prior to the Applicant lodging his citizenship application falls between 16 April 2021 and 15 April 2025. There is no dispute he was absent from Australia from 17 November 2022 until 29 November 2023.[52] This exceeds the permissible period of absence at s 22(1A) of the Act, which the Tribunal has no general discretion to waive. Attention therefore turns to whether available exemptions or discretions under the Act assist the Applicant in overcoming non-satisfaction of the general residence requirement.
3. The Applicant makes no claim relevant to the partial exemptions or Ministerial discretions at ss 22(2), (5A), (9), or (11) of the Act. In terms of his claim that denial of citizenship results from 'an administrative discriminatory error by the Government' by not accepting that his 'brain injury' rendered him incapable of calculating when he had to return to Australia, this claimed condition is uncorroborated by medical evidence. Moreover, ministerial discretion relating to administrative error at s 22(4A) of the Act is only for the purpose of paragraphs 22(1)(b) - (c) of the Act, which is inapposite to the Applicant's circumstances.
4. The Applicant's claims centre on s 22(6) of the Act and Ministerial discretion relating to 'significant hardship or disadvantage'. Again, this provision does not assist him in overcoming non-satisfaction of the general residence requirement in the four years prior to lodging his application. That is because s 22(6) only applies to s 22(1)(c) of the Act, which relates to 'the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application'. Paragraph 4.7.4 of CPI 8 also explains that periods of residence outside Australia 'cannot be treated as periods of permanent residence for the purposes of the ministerial discretion...because paragraph 22(6)(a) of the Act requires the applicant to be present in Australia during the 12 month period'.
5. In terms of the Applicant's claims about purported breaches of the 'Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and 'Human Rights Act', there is no reviewable decision relating to these statutes and therefore no jurisdiction. In terms of the Applicant's reference to the High Court's decision in Davis, this related to a majority of the High Court allowing an appeal from the Full Federal Court about Departmental officials declining to refer requests for Ministerial intervention under s 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The relevance of this to the current reviewable decision was not meaningfully advanced during the hearing and is not otherwise discernible from the evidence.
6. The Applicant makes no claims about satisfying the special residence requirements at ss 22A and 22B of the Act, or the Defence service requirement at s 23 of the Act. The Tribunal is unable to discern any connection to these provisions from the available evidence, such as the Applicant being involved in a type of activity benefitting Australia, or a specified kind of work requiring regular travel outside of Australia within the meaning of LIN 21/069.

1. The Applicant does not satisfy the general residence requirement at s 21(3)(c) of the Act. nor any of the exemptions or Ministerial discretions under the Act. He is therefore ineligible for citizenship under s 24(1A) of the Act.
2. The Applicant can reapply for citizenship when he either satisfies the general residence requirement or a permissible exception / discretion.

1. It follows that the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.

I certify that the preceding 40 (forty) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

[1] As defined by s 5AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[14] BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865, [11]-[12]; G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229; (2018) 266 FCR 511.

[15] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.

[16] A SFIC is routinely lodged by parties during the pre-hearing phase and is comparable to a pleadings document in a judicial proceeding. It serves to identify / narrow issues in dispute and helps ensure both sides are aware of and have an opportunity to answer each other's case.

[33] Abbreviation for 'Complaining Of'.