1. The relevant legislation is provided in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).
2. Section 21 of the Act relevantly provides that:

(2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person: [...]

(g) 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; [...].

1. The Australian Citizenship Policy and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) provide guidance to decision makers when considering applications for Citizenship. While the Tribunal is not bound by government policy, it will generally be taken into consideration unless there is good reason not to do so.[20]
2. CPI 11 is entitled "Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia". It addresses, amongst other issues, the conferral of Australian citizenship under s 21(2) of the Act.
3. CPI 11 provides that the words comprising the phrase "likely to reside" in s 21(2)(g) are to be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear.[21] Specifically, CPI 11 provides the following definitions:
   • 'likely' as probably or apparently going or destined (to do, be, etc) - in the context of the requirements of the Act, this means it is probable rather than possible that the person will reside in Australia;
   • 'reside' as to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; have one's abode for a time - in the context of the requirements of the Act, this means the person's home in which they ordinarily live is in Australia.
4. CPI 11 states that it is relevant to an assessment of a person's intention to reside in Australia that they have been "outside Australia for six months or more during the processing of their application" or that they have "indicated they will reside outside Australia after obtaining Australian citizenship; for example, they have indicated an intention to migrate elsewhere or to take up employment outside Australia".[22]
5. CPI 11 provides that the words comprising the phrase "close and continuing association with Australia" in s 21(2)(g) are to be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear.[23] Specifically, CPI 11 provides the following definitions:
   • 'maintain' as to keep in existence or continuance; preserve; retain;
   • 'close' as near, or near together, in space, time, or relation;
   • 'continuing' as to last or endure;
   • 'association' as the act of associating ... connection or combination.
6. CPI 11 states that:

It is important to note that the requirement to maintain a close and continuing association refers to an association with Australia, not with Australians. This means that a close and continuing association with immediate/extended family or other social relationships or networks in Australia, on its own, may not be a sufficient factor to meet this requirement, although each case must be considered on its own merits.[24]

While not defined in legislation, the purpose of this part of the requirements is that the applicant demonstrates that they are participating in the Australian community, although they are not residing in Australia. This may include, but is not limited to:

• participation in a community group that provides services or engages in activities of benefit to the Australian community;
• undertaking education or profession-based studies with an Australian institution; or
• membership of a board or committee of a club, charity or other entity that provides services, recreational or educational opportunities in Australia.[25]

1. CPI 11 lists factors which may be relevant to the determination raised by s 21(2)(g) of the Act of whether the Applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.[26] Those factors relate to the Applicant's:

(a) pre-existing connection with Australia;

(b) employment status;

(c) financial issues;

(d) overseas employment or business;

(e) family relationships;

(f) return travel to, and periods of residence in, Australia;

(g) primary residence and migration status in foreign country;

(h) intention to reside in Australia; and

(i) any claims that the Applicant will return to Australia.

1. By email sent on 10 December 2025, the Respondent raised for the first time an issue that was not addressed in the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC) dated 16 September 2025. The circumstances in which that issue was raised are addressed below. At this point, it suffices to record that s 24 of the Act relevantly provides that:

(5) If:

(a) the person is covered by subsection 21(2), (3) or (4); and

(aa) the Minister is satisfied that the person did not satisfy the special residence requirement referred to in section 22A or 22B; and

(b) the Minister did not apply subsection 22(9) in relation to the person; and

(c) the Minister did not apply subsection 22(11) in relation to the person;

the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen at a time when the person is not present in Australia.

1. CPI 33 provides that the prohibition in s 24(5) of the Act applies to Australian citizenship by conferral under sub-sections of the Act including s 21(2) and that, subject to the exceptions in s 24(5)(aa)-(c):

A delegate must not approve an applicant for citizenship by conferral as set out above if the applicant is not present in Australia at the time of decision.[27]

1. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the Applicant satisfies the criteria in s 21(2) of the Act. The Respondent's SOFIC raised only the issue of whether the Applicant satisfies s 21(2)(g) of the Act and the matter proceeded until shortly before the hearing on the basis that this was the only issue in contention.[28]
2. Sub-section 21(2)(g) of the Act raises three distinct issues, of which any one must be answered affirmatively in order for the Applicant to satisfy the statutory criterion. Those issues are whether the Applicant is likely:

(i) to reside in Australia;

(ii) to continue to reside in Australia; or

(iii) to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia;

if her application were to be approved.[29]

1. CPI 11 states that there is a distinction between the first and second issues set out above based upon the location in which an applicant currently resides.[30] They are, in that sense, mutually exclusive. Because the Applicant currently resides outside Australia, the question of whether she is likely to continue to reside in Australia does not arise for consideration.
2. The Respondent raised the potential prohibition in s 24(5) of the Act on the Applicant obtaining citizenship while not present in Australia for the first time on the afternoon of the day before the hearing commenced. A decision of Senior Member Puplick in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) described that sub-section as being "unequivocal and unyielding" and as importing "no discretion".[31] I accept that characterisation of s 24(5) of the Act where it applies. Whether it applies is contingent on satisfaction of one element of the condition in s 24(5)(a). It follows that, in this case, there is no issue to be determined under s 24(5) unless the Applicant is, at least, "covered by subsection 21(2)".
3. On that basis, the parties agreed that the Tribunal should hear arguments and evidence relating to whether the Applicant meets the criterion in s 21(2)(g) at the hearing on 11 December 2025 and that the parties would be asked to attend a directions hearing precedent to a further hearing of the issues raised by s 24(5) only in the event that I find that the Applicant satisfies that criterion. The latter course of action is unnecessary as a consequence of my findings in relation to s 21(2)(g) of the Act.

1. The Applicant did not file and serve a written response to the Respondent's SOFIC. Rather, she relied on her responses to the Department's requests for further information,[32] a letter to the Tribunal dated 17 August 2025[33] and attachments to those submissions.
2. The Applicant's contentions in those documents are as follows:

(i) she came to Australia in 2015 with the intention to settle her permanently, having sold the home she and Mr Wheen owned in the United Kingdom;[34]

(ii) she "established a home in Australia" prior to relocating to Singapore in December 2021;[35]

(iii) she has been married to an Australian citizen since 2002 and they have three Australian citizen children;[36]

(iv) she has extended family in Australia, including her parents-in-law and sister-in-law;[37]

(v) she has returned to Australia for visits since moving abroad;[38]

(vi) she paid income tax in Australia between 2020 and 2022;[39]

(vii) although her pension and superannuation funds are not held in Australia, her husband has assets in Australia in the form of money invested with an Australian superannuation fund[40] and he and the Applicant plan to consolidate their superannuation in Australia;[41]

(viii) she "plunged into life in Sydney" and was "highly integrated in Australian society", including by her family participating extensively in community and sporting life;[42]

(ix) she retrained and then opened and operated "a complementary medicine business on Sydney's Northern Beaches";[43]

(x) she continues to maintain links to the Australian "complementary health medicine community" and is developing "health retreats for Australian based clients" which demonstrate a continuing business association with Australia;[44]

(xi) she plans to practice complementary medicine when she returns to Australia,[45] and is working to grow her "Australian client base" for that purpose by undertaking further professional training and developing wellness retreats from her "family holiday home in France";[46]

(xii) she maintains close links with Australian friends and family;[47]

(xiii) she and Mr Wheen live in rented accommodation in Dublin;[48]

(xiv) she and Mr Wheen intend to buy property in Sydney when they return;[49]

(xv) she left Australia in 2021 only so Mr Wheen could pursue his career and they intend to return to Australia in 2027;[50]

(xvi) she and Mr Wheen have "decided that for [their] family's economic benefit" to "give priority to [Mr Wheen]'s career", with the result that the Applicant's "career was secondary";[51] and

(xvii) Coca-Cola is responsible for paying for the Applicant and her husband to return to Australia in 2027.[52]

1. The Applicant submitted that, while she does not currently reside in Australia, she did at the time that she applied to become an Australian citizen by conferral and therefore seeks "the exercise of discretion" regarding the fact that she is not present in Australia.[53]
2. The Applicant intends to co-host, with Ms Belinda Bowers-Smith, a wellness retreat at a property owned by the Applicant in Châteauneuf-Grasse, in the hills above the French Riviera between 21 and 28 June 2026.[54]

1. The Applicant's oral evidence at the hearing essentially addressed the same issues as her five written submissions, set out above. The Applicant gave evidence that:

(a) she and Mr Wheen travelled to Australia on many occasions before 2015 and that she migrated her with "the intention to reside long-term";

(b) she and her family relocated to Singapore in 2021 because Mr Wheen's job with Coca-Cola required him to move to one of three "global hubs", of which Singapore was the closest to Australia;

(c) she and Mr Wheen sold the Newport property and many of their household goods before leaving Australia because it was "economically smart" to do so but they intend to purchase property in Sydney when they return to live in Australia;

(d) she applied for citizenship before departing Australia so that she could "get her affairs in order";

(e) Coca-Cola has a contractual obligation to repatriate Mr Wheen, along with the Applicant and their effects, to Sydney at the end of his "assignment" to Dublin in July 2027;

(f) her two elder children have taken educational opportunities overseas that they would have taken regardless of whether the Applicant and her husband lived in Australia or elsewhere;

(g) she trained in complementary medicine for about three years from 2016 and ran a complementary medicine practice in Sydney, Inside and Out Kinesiology, between 2019 and her departure from Australia in 2021;

(h) she maintains contact with her substantial base of Australian clients and continues an online practice;

(i) she has many Australian friends and an Australian extended family to whom she is close;

(j) she remains connected to the Australian complementary medicine community; and

(k) she shares the values and attitudes common to the Australian community.

1. The Applicant's oral evidence was consistent with the evidence in her written statements to the Tribunal as it is set out above. I consider specific aspects of the Applicant's evidence below.
2. The key issue that the Applicant emphasised in her oral evidence is that she and Mr Wheen will return to live in Australia at the conclusion of Mr Wheen's overseas assignment with Coca-Cola. The Applicant submitted that it is not likely that she will return to reside in Australia but a certainty.
3. I found that the Applicant was a credible witness and that her evidence was considered and thoughtful. I attach weight to the Applicant's evidence.

1. The Tribunal took oral evidence from four witnesses: Ms Belinda Bowers-Smith; Mr David Wheen; Ms Sarah Stewart; and Mr George Wheen. All four witnesses appeared before the Tribunal via Microsoft Teams.

1. Ms Bowers-Smith made a witness statement dated 22 October 2025.[55] In it, she stated that:

(i) she has known the Applicant since 2016 when the Applicant started studying at the College of Complementary Medicine in Sydney;

(ii) the Applicant developed a wellness practice in Sydney's northern beaches, through which she "supported the wellbeing of her local community";

(iii) the Applicant was "personally devastated to leave Australia when her husband was posted overseas" to Singapore and subsequently to Dublin;

(iv) the Applicant "has continued to work online with many of her Australian clients and remains deeply connected to her professional community here";

(v) the Applicant is collaborating with Ms Bowers-Smith "on an Australian-led international wellness event taking place in June 2026", in which the Applicant "will be working as local host and co-facilitator" as part of a "continuing professional relationship" with her Australian clients; and

(vi) the Applicant and Ms Bowers-Smith intend to organise further events together, including in Australia when Mr Wheen's posting overseas concludes.

1. At the hearing, Ms Bowers-Smith gave evidence that the date of the proposed wellness retreat in France has been moved from June 2026 to September 2026. She gave evidence that the retreat in France is intended to be the first of several, including in Australian locations when the Applicant returns to Australia. She gave evidence that the collaboration between herself and the Applicant is designed to take advantage of their similar qualifications and shared goals but is not a legal partnership. She gave evidence that they plan to draw on the Applicant's Australian client base in their marketing of the retreats.
2. I accept that Ms Bowers-Smith and the Applicant have plans to conduct retreats, including one which they intend to conduct from a property owned by the Applicant in France in September 2026. Ms Bowers-Smith did not give evidence, and I do not accept, that she and the Applicant have contracted with each other or that there is otherwise a formal arrangement between their respective businesses in respect of the planned retreats. She did not give evidence that anyone, including the Applicant's Australian clients, has yet committed to attend the retreat in September 2026 or any of the retreats which she and the Applicant plan to run in the future.
3. I found Ms Bowers-Smith to be a credible witness and attach weight to her evidence. I find that she and the Applicant intend to operate a commercial venture which is, at present, restricted to running a wellness retreat from the Applicant's property in France in September 2026. I find that Ms Bowers-Smith and the Applicant do not plan to "formalise" their business arrangements until after the retreat in France at the soonest.

1. Mr David Wheen is the Applicant's father-in-law. He made a witness statement dated 23 October 2025.[56] In it, he stated that:

(i) he met the Applicant in 1999 and she is a greatly loved and valued member of the Wheen family in Australia;

(ii) he and his wife often visited the Applicant and her husband when they lived in the United Kingdom and the Applicant and her husband "made numerous holiday visits to Australia";

(iii) the Applicant and her children "greatly enjoyed the outdoor and relatively casual Australian lifestyle" and the time that they could spend with their extended family here;

(iv) the Applicant had many friends in Sydney whom she had got to know in London;

(v) the Applicant has stated since 2015 that Australia is her "long term home" and she has only lived abroad because of her husband's career;

(vi) there has "never been any suggestion" that the Applicant will not return to live in Australia;

(vii) the Applicant has continued to practice complementary medicine while overseas and has maintained professional connections in Australia, where she intends to return to her practice when she relocates back; and

(viii) the Applicant will return to Australia "when George's career permits".

1. Mr David Wheen addressed the points above in his oral evidence to the Tribunal. He also gave evidence, which I accept, about his close relationships with the Applicant's children.
2. During his oral evidence, Mr David Wheen emphasised that there have been "compelling reasons" for the Applicant's extended absence from Australia since December 2021. He gave evidence that it is "more than probable" that the Applicant will again reside in Australia and that she will again operate a complementary medicine practice in Sydney. Mr David Wheen reiterated on several occasions that the Applicant will return to Australia "as soon as [her husband's] career permits".
3. I found Mr David Wheen to be a credible witness and attach weight to his evidence.

1. The Applicant submitted a letter of reference dated 29 October 2024 and signed by Sarah Stewart.[57] That letter stated that its author had known the Applicant for 20 years and her husband for 25 years and that they moved from the United Kingdom to Australia "so that their children could benefit from the benefits of an Australian life". The letter stated that the Applicant was "embedded in local life" during her time living in Sydney and that she looks forward to seeing the Applicant at the end of Mr Wheen's current assignment to Dublin.
2. Ms Stewart made a witness statement dated 27 October 2025.[58] In it, she stated that:

(i) the Applicant was "disappointed ... to leave Sydney in 2021 after almost five happy years during which she and her family became an active part of their local community";

(ii) the Applicant's family only started to live outside Australia "due to her husband George's corporate posting";

(iii) the Applicant "has always made clear her intention to return to Australia as soon as that posting concludes";

(iv) the Applicant "will be delighted to return to Sydney to resume her life among her extensive circle of friends and family";

(v) the Applicant "has a natural affinity with the Australian way of life and has well and truly made Australia her home";

(vi) the Applicant's connection to Australia "is personal and genuine, linked to extended family and friends and a place where her children spent important formative years in their teens"; and

(vii) the Applicant's "commitment to Australia and her community remains unwavering".

1. Ms Stewart's oral evidence addressed the issues raised in her letter of reference and witness statement. She emphasised that the Applicant has an "independent life" and that her identity is not merely "an adjunct" to that of her husband. Ms Stewart gave evidence that the Applicant is in constant connection with members of the Australian community online and that the Australian community is "enhanced" by the Applicant's life beyond Australia.
2. I found Ms Stewart to be a credible witness and attach weight to her evidence as it is set out above.

1. Mr Wheen made a witness statement dated 23 October 2025.[59] In it, he stated that:

(i) he and the Applicant visited Australia on at least ten occasions while they lived in London prior to 2015;

(ii) they moved to Australia in 2015 "after many years of discussion and [the Applicant's] real desire to make Australia her and our home", something about which Mr Wheen was "delighted";

(iii) the Applicant retrained in complementary medicine and they made many friends in Australia, including with people they had known in London;

(iv) Mr Wheen obtained work with Coca-Cola and, after a global restructure cause his role to be made redundant in 2020, secured a new position based in Singapore;

(v) Mr Wheen has an "expatriate contract" and that, when his "time abroad finishes", Coca-Cola will relocate him back to Australia;

(vi) they moved to Dublin "due to the long working hours given the time zone of Singapore";

(vii) there is a possibility that, at the end of his current assignment in June 2027, Mr Wheen "will have a contract extension in Dublin or elsewhere";

(viii) he and the Applicant intend to "relocate with Coca-Cola back to Australia" at the end of his contract.

1. Mr Wheen's oral evidence addressed the circumstances in which he, the Applicant and their children migrated to Australia in 2015 and subsequently relocated to Singapore in 2021. He gave evidence that it was a "wrench" to leave the kinesiology practice that the Applicant had set up but that they agreed to do so because he had been offered such a "good career opportunity".
2. Mr Wheen gave evidence that Coca-Cola is contractually obliged to repatriate him and his family to Sydney, along with their personal effects, at the end of his assignment in Dublin. He gave evidence that it is possible that his overseas assignment will be extended and that he would consider an extension of his assignment overseas beyond June 2027. The applicant gave evidence that, although his employers understand that it is his intention to return to Sydney, he does not expect to start discussing his next role with them until "closer to 2027". Mr Wheen gave evidence, and I accept, that the contractual obligation to repatriate him to Sydney will apply regardless of whether he accepts a further extension to his posting overseas. Mr Wheen gave evidence that he expects to continue working for Coca-Cola when he returns to Australia but that there is no guarantee that he will.
3. I found Mr Wheen to be a credible witness and attach weight to his evidence.

1. In addition to the oral evidence above, the Applicant also submitted a letter of reference dated 7 November 2024 and signed by Mr Adam Magro and Dr Sophie Scamps.[60] That letter states that its authors have known the Applicant for 25 years and her husband for 30 years, that they took many holidays together and that the look forward to the Applicant returning to live in Australia "when George's work commitment finishes". The letter contains details of the Applicant's activities during the six years that she lived in Australia between 2015 and 2021.
2. I attach some weight to the letter of reference provided by Mr Magro and Dr Scamps.

1. The evidence given by the Applicant and the witnesses who appeared before the Tribunal in this case supports several findings about which there was no dispute between the parties.
2. I make the following findings:

(a) The Applicant left Australia because Mr Wheen had the opportunity to work overseas in a role which represented a promotion from the role he had had in Australia.

(b) The Applicant and Mr Wheen decided to relocate to Singapore after a restructure within Coca-Cola meant that Mr Wheen could no longer work for that company in Australia and his efforts to find another suitable role in Australia had proved unsuccessful.

(c) The Applicant and Mr Wheen decided to move to Singapore notwithstanding that the Applicant would need to close her practice in Sydney because they gave priority to Mr Wheen's career for economic reasons.

(d) The Applicant does not intend to reside in Australia before the conclusion of Mr Wheen's overseas posting with Coca-Cola, which will be no sooner than July 2027 but may be some years later than that if he accepts a further extension.

(e) While the Applicant and Mr Wheen intend to move back to Australia at some time in the future, they have no firm plans in place and are unable to predict with certainty when they will reside in Australia again.

1. I find that the nature of the contract offered to Mr Wheen at the time that he and the Applicant relocated to Singapore made it both reasonable and sensible for them to sell the Newport property. I further find that it was both reasonable and sensible for them to sell various personal assets rather than to place them in storage in Australia.

Is the Applicant likely to reside in Australia if her application were to be approved?

1. The Respondent contended that the Applicant "has not provided any evidence that her intentions about where she will reside will be changed by the approval of her citizenship application" but that "the evidence indicates that her intentions about where she will reside are strongly tied to her husband's overseas employment status" and that she will reside overseas until at least July 2027, when Mr Wheen's current assignment ends.[61] The Applicant's evidence did not dispute that contention, which I accept.
2. The Respondent contended that "the evidence currently does not show that the Applicant has made the sort of arrangements to return to Australia" that would enable me to be confident that she is likely to reside in Australia from July 2027.[62] I find, based on the evidence of the Applicant and Mr Wheen, that they have not made arrangements to return to Australia and that such arrangements will not be made until "closer to 2027" at the earliest.
3. Given "the unequivocal evidence from the Applicant that she has no intention of residing in Australia until at least July 2027",[63] the Respondent contended that I should not be satisfied that the Applicant is likely to reside in Australia if her application were to be approved.
4. The phrase "likely to reside" has been the subject of previous consideration and it has been accepted that it "presupposes a relatively short timeframe".[64] In O'Leary, Senior Member Raif found that a "period of at least 7 months and possibly as long as 12 months" could not be considered as "a 'reasonably short timeframe' or a 'reasonable time'".[65]
5. In Ho, a Deputy President of the AAT considered the circumstances of an applicant who sought citizenship but who "[chose] to live abroad" and whose "plans for future residence [were] quite uncertain".[66] The Deputy President considered the term "likely to reside" as it appeared in the previous legislation,[67] which was relevantly very similar to s 21(2)(g), and stated that it:

cannot mean 'likely to take up residence in 18 months or two years' time' or 'likely to reside some time in the indefinite future if economic conditions permit and if a suitable job can be found'. The juxtaposition of the phrase with the opening phrase of the paragraph [namely, 'if granted a certificate of Australian citizenship'], indicates that the Minister must be satisfied that the applicant is likely to reside in Australia immediately, or very soon after, being granted a certificate of Australian citizenship. In my view, that has not been shown in this case. Indeed, the positive evidence of Mr Ho is that this requirement, as I understand its meaning, will not be met. This in itself is a bar to the grant of Australian citizenship to him.[68]

6. The AAT found in another case that an applicant was "likely to reside" in Australia in circumstances when the timing of her return to Australia was not precise but the evidence indicated that it was "likely to be in the short term future"[69] and that her husband, whose work had taken the applicant abroad, was "already taking steps to facilitate the family's return to Australia".[70]
7. It is common ground in this case, and I have found, that the Applicant will not return to Australia before July 2027 at the earliest and may in fact return somewhat later than that if her husband is offered a further extension to his overseas posting. I have also found that no steps have yet been taken to arrange for Mr Wheen or the Applicant to return to live in Australia. I do not accept that the Applicant will return to reside in Australia for at least another 18 months. I do not accept on the evidence before me that the Applicant will return to Australia within a reasonably short timeframe.
8. I am not satisfied that the Applicant is likely to reside in Australia if her application for citizenship were to be approved.

Is the Applicant likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if her application were to be approved?

1. A determination of whether the Applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia requires "a multi-factorial approach"[71] and "is to be objectively assessed" using "a qualitative assessment of the ultimate significance of an applicant's circumstances" rather than only "some evidence of a relevant kind of association".[72]
2. The factors relevant to that determination are set out below.[73]

1. The Applicant resided in Australia and established a home in Sydney between migrating to Australia in 2015 and relocating to Singapore in 2021. However, while the Applicant may have a pre-existing connection with Australians, it falls to her to establish a close and continuing association with Australia, not merely with Australians.[74]
2. It is relevant to this factor that the Applicant established a home in Australia after migration, owned a business in Australia, established ties in the Australian community, has Australian citizen children, is married to an Australian citizen, participated in local community events and groups while resident in Australia and studied in Australia.
3. I am satisfied that the Applicant had a close connection to Australia prior to her departure.

1. The Respondent contended that, while the Applicant paid tax in Australia in the financial years immediately preceding her application for citizenship, there is no evidence that she has done so in the financial years since then. The Applicant's evidence at the hearing was that she last paid tax in Australia in relation to Inside and Out Kinesiology for the 2020/21 financial year.[75] She gave evidence that she has never paid personal income tax in Australia.
2. The "payment of income tax is an important aspect disclosing involvement in the Australian community"[76] and has been identified as a factor indicating a close and continuing association with Australia. However, it was integral to the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal that she was financially dependent on the income of Mr Wheen between 2015 and 2021 and that her work in Australia was only as a sole trader. It was not submitted, nor do I find, that Mr Wheen did not pay income tax during his residence in Australia. It was not submitted, nor do I find, that the Applicant did not pay tax as required in relation to Inside and Out Kinesiology. I give limited weight to the fact that the Applicant did not pay income tax during the period of her residence in Australia, since that fact relates primarily to her family's financial arrangements rather than to whether she had a close and continuing association with Australia during the four years prior to her application.[77]
3. The fact that the Applicant has not paid tax in Australia since the 2020/21 financial year is relevant to the fact that she has not been resident in Australia since 2021. I consider the length of the Applicant's residence outside Australia elsewhere in these reasons.

Family relationships and return travel to Australia

1. The Respondent contended that, given that there is no evidence that any of the Applicant's immediate family members reside in Australia, evidence of a connection with those family members should not weigh in favour of a finding that the Applicant has maintained a close and continuing association with Australia.[78] I find that the Applicant's husband and children do not reside in Australia and that they do not intend to do so until, at the earliest, the Applicant's sons enrol in Australian universities at the start of 2027. No evidence was submitted to support the Applicant's evidence that her sons will enrol in Australian universities and I find that, at best, it is their current intention to do so at a future time no sooner than January 2027. I am not satisfied that the Applicant's relationships to members of her immediate family indicate that she is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
2. The Respondent contended that there is no evidence that the Applicant maintains relationships with her extended family members in Australia or of how those relationships allow the Applicant to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.[79] During the hearing, the Applicant, Mr Wheen and Mr David Wheen each gave evidence that the Applicant is extremely close to the Wheen family in Australia. I accept that she is.
3. The Respondent noted that, since the Applicant departed in December 2021, she has visited Australia only for a 22-day visit over Christmas in 2022. She has not returned to Australia for more than two-and-a-half years since 7 January 2023.[80] The Applicant did not dispute that that is the case. Given that the Applicant has made only one return visit to Australia since departing in December 2021, I give only limited weight to her relationships with her extended family as evidence of her close and continuing association with Australia.

Primary residence and migration status in foreign country

1. Although the Applicant owns property in France, she gave evidence that she has not owned property in Australia since selling the Newport property before departing to live in Singapore. I have accepted that the sale of the Newport property was a reasonable course of action given the nature of Mr Wheen's overseas assignment to Singapore. The Respondent contended that the fact that the Applicant owns property in Europe but not Australia weighs against a finding that she has maintained a close and continuing association with Australia.[81] I find, for reasons set out above, that the Applicant does not own property in Australia as a result of the circumstances in which she and Mr Wheen departed Australia to live in Singapore. I attach little weight to the fact that the Applicant owns property in France as an indication that she has not maintained a close and continuing association with Australia.
2. I have accepted that Mr Wheen's employment will cause the Applicant to reside in Dublin until at least July 2027. I find that the Applicant and Mr Wheen rent their residence in Dublin and that the house in France is a holiday home which also represents an investment, given the Applicant's evidence that she plans both to run a retreat there and to rent it out to people wishing to take holidays in France in the future. I find that Mr Wheen and the Applicant do not intend to reside in the Republic of Ireland beyond the period of Mr Wheen's assignment there as an employee of Coca-Cola.
3. I accept the Respondent's submission that the employment arrangements of the Applicant and her husband are focussed entirely overseas, except to the extent that the retreats planned by the Applicant are targeted towards Australian clients. The Respondent contended that, while the Applicant has given evidence that she is working to put on retreats in France targeted towards Australian clients, those retreats have not yet been conducted, there is no objective evidence that they are targeted at Australian clients and that, if they were, this would represent at best a tangential connection with Australian expatriates, rather than a close and continuing association with Australia.[82]
4. Neither the Applicant nor Ms Bowers-Smith gave evidence which indicates that any clients have committed to attending the retreat in France scheduled for September 2026. I do not accept on the evidence before me that they have. The evidence about the planned retreats following the one planned to take place in France indicates that they are at present entirely speculative and I do not find that any steps have been taken towards planning those retreats. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the Applicant's business arrangements with Ms Bowers-Smith are targeted towards Australian clients.
5. The Applicant gave evidence that she is maintaining contact with her Australian client base in order to have the basis of a practice when she returns to Australia. I accept that evidence but find that the Applicant does not currently have a business in Australia. The Applicant gave evidence, and I accept, that her practice has changed considerably since she ran Inside and Out Kinesiology and that she has retrained "strategically" since then in forms of therapy that rely less on physical contact and can be conducted online. I find that the Applicant will operate a practice when she returns to Australia but that it will be conducted online to a greater extent than when she previously lived in Australia. In essence, I find that the Applicant will likely pursue a similar business model in Australia to her current practice, which is conducted extensively online.
6. The Applicant agreed with the suggestion that her work does not in fact require her to be located in Australia but added that she continues to work with many Australian clients. I accept that the Applicant's work causes her to maintain a close and continuing association with Australians but I am not satisfied that she maintains a close and continuing association with Australia as a result of her work.

Intention to reside and any claims that the Applicant will return to Australia

1. I have found that the Applicant has no intention to reside in Australia until at least July 2027. The Respondent contended that the Applicant lacks a "concrete plan" to return to, and reside in, Australia in July 2027 and noted: the lack evidence that the Applicant has maintained property in Australia; the minimal evidence regarding the Applicant's plans to recommence her business activities in Australia; the lack of evidence that the Applicant's children intend to relocate with the Applicant in July 2027; and the lack of evidence about Mr Wheen's employment prospects after July 2027.[83]
2. The Respondent noted that, after completing his assignment in Singapore, Mr Wheen then immediately commenced a further three-year assignment in Dublin.[84] I find, on the basis of the evidence given by the Applicant and Mr Wheen, that it is at least possible that Mr Wheen will be offered and accept an extension to his overseas employment with Coca-Cola after June 2027. While I accept that the Applicant intends to return to Australia at the conclusion of Mr Wheen's overseas assignments, "a declaration of intent, without any indication whatsoever of a timeframe, carries very little weight".[85]
3. I find that the Applicant intends to return to Australia but that there is no evidence before me to indicate when she intends to return. The Applicant's return to Australia is contingent on a number of issues which relate to Mr Wheen's work. I find that, although the Applicant may travel to Australia at or shortly before the time that her sons are looking to commence university studies here in 2027, she will not return to reside in Australia before July 2027. I find that there are no plans in place for the Applicant to reside in Australia and that such plans will not be made, at the earliest, for at least a year.
4. I am not satisfied that the Applicant's intention to return to reside in Australia indicates that she maintains a close and continuing association with Australia.

Conclusions on whether the Applicant has close and continuing association with Australia

1. Considered cumulatively on the basis of the Applicant's circumstances as a whole, the factors in CPI 11, considered above, do not weigh in favour of a finding that the Applicant maintains a close and continuing association with Australia.
2. I am not satisfied that the Applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if her application for citizenship were to be approved.

1. For the reasons above, the Applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 21(2)(g) of the Act. I am therefore not satisfied that she is eligible to become an Australian citizen.
2. Consequently, a condition precedent to the application of the prohibition in s 24(5) of the Act has not been met. I have therefore not considered the issues raised by that provision.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[20] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 (Brennan J).

[28] See the delegate's decision at HB 26-34.

[31] Leverenz and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022]

[32] HB 84-85, 224, 228-229 and 270-271.

[46] HB 315; citing HB 314 and 319-323.

[52] HB 224 and 270; citing HB 153-162.

[64] O'Leary and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 2495 (O'Leary), [26] (Senior Member K Raif).

[66] Re Ho and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 664 (Ho), 671 [30] (Deputy President BJ McMahon).

[67] Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) s 13(1)(j).

[69] Re Saba and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 579 (Saba), [30] (Senior Member PW Taylor).

[71] This is provided at CPI 11, [3.6].

[72] Judd v Minister for Immigration (2017) 72 AAR 349; [2017] FCA 827, [14] (Perry J). Her Honour was considering the phrase "close and continuing association with Australia" as it appears in s 22(9)(d) of the Act.

[73] The Respondent raised a number of issues relating to the Applicant's overseas employment or business: SOFIC, [35]-[38]. CPI 11 indicates that that factor is relevant only to the Applicant's "intention to reside" in Australia under s 21(2)(g) rather than to her close and continuing association with Australia: CPI 11, [3.6] 'Overseas employment or business'. For that reason, I have considered the Respondent's contentions about those issues in relation to the factor relating to the Applicant's intention to reside in Australia.

[74] SOFIC, [34]; CPI 11, [3.5]. That point is well-established; see Re Sabumei and Minister for immigration and Border Protection (2014) 144 ALD 422; [2014] AATA 648, [25] (Senior Member CR Walsh).

[76] Taher v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 917 (Taher), [56] (Senior Member E Fice).