6. The delegate informed the Applicant that the information provided had led them to determine that she did not meet the requirements to be approved as an Australian citizen by descent under s16 of subdivision A of the Act. The delegate was satisfied that the Applicant was adopted in Sri Lanka as per an adoption court order made 13 March 2020 and the adoption certificate and registered on 27 July 2020. The delegate found that the parents had parental responsibility for the Applicant from 13 March 2020 at the earliest.
7. The eligibility requirements for becoming an Australian citizen by descent include a requirement that a parent of the Applicant was an Australian citizen at the time of her birth. The delegate found that neither of the Applicant's Australian citizen parents were her parents at the time of her birth, and consequently she did not meet the requirements for grant of Australian citizenship.
8. The Applicant's parents sought merits review of that decision on 18 December 2020 at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT'). On 21 July 2021, the AAT found the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decision on the grounds that no decision had been made under s17 of the Act. On 17 August 2023, the Applicant lodged another application for Australian citizenship by descent, which was accompanied by additional supporting documents.
9. On 13 February 2025, the second application was refused by a delegate of the Minister ('the reviewable decision').

1. The relevant legislation is provided in the Act. Section 16 provides for application and eligibility for citizenship. Section 16(1) provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen and s16(2) relevantly provides:

Persons born outside Australia on or after 26 January 1949 > > (2) A person born outside Australia on or after 26 January 1949 is eligible to become an Australian citizen if: > > (a) a parent of the person was an Australian citizen at the time of the birth ...

1. The word 'parent' is not defined in the Act. Whether a person is a parent is a finding of fact to be determined by the Tribunal with reference to relevant case law and policy. Guidance is provided in the decision by the Full Federal Court in H v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (H v Minister)[5], which found the meaning of 'parent' in s16(a) of the Act was not restricted to a biological parent. The Court concluded that that it is sufficient that at the time of birth, an Australia citizen is a parent as the word is understood in ordinary usage. The Court found:

The ordinary meaning of the word "parent" is, however, clearly a question of fact, as is the question whether a particular person qualifies as a parent within that ordinary meaning. Applying s 16(2)(a), the Tribunal is bound to determine whether or not, at the time of the applicant's birth, he or she had a citizen parent. In deciding whether a person can be properly described as the applicant's parent, the Tribunal is obliged to consider the evidence before it, including evidence as to the supposed parent's conduct before and at the time of birth and evidence as to the conduct of any other person who may be supposed to have had some relevant knowledge. Evidence as to conduct after the birth may be relevant as confirming that parentage at the time of birth. For example, evidence that a person acknowledged the applicant as his own before and at the time of birth and, thereafter, treated the applicant as his own, may justify a finding that that person was a parent of the applicant within the ordinary meaning of the word "parent" at the time of the birth.

2. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement ('Policy Statement') outlines the overarching legislative requirements for the process of becoming an Australian citizen. The Policy Statement also provides context for the relevant Citizenship Procedural Instructions ('CPI') when making decisions under the Act. CPI 21 provides guidance on Citizenship by Descent applications. CPI 14 provides guidance when Determining who is a Responsible Parent and Parent-Child Relationship for the purposes of the Act.
3. CPI 14 highlights that caution should be exercised when deciding cases involving citizenship by descent, especially those involving non-biological parentage. This ensures that Australia's citizenship provisions are not used to circumvent adoption laws, human trafficking and other child welfare laws.
4. The Tribunal is not bound to strictly apply policy, but as it is government policy it should be considered unless there are cogent reasons not to do so (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2).[6]

1. The issue to be determined is whether the Applicant had an Australian citizen parent at the time of her birth and satisfies s 16(2)(a) of the Act.

1. The Applicant's parents contend that they had a non-biological customary parent-child relationship to the Applicant, and that they were involved in providing care for the unborn child and her birth mother during the pregnancy. The care included providing financial assistance, medical expenses, food, vitamins, accommodation, travel, and domestic help for the birth mother. They were both Australian citizens at the time, and they submit they treated the unborn child as their own.
2. In written submissions, the Applicant's father stated that his cousin, Mr C, (the 'cousin') contacted he and his wife about the possibility of adopting a child in Sri Lanka. His cousin is well connected and would be able to put the couple in touch with a 'suitable person to deal with full confidence'. The Applicant's parents discussed the proposition and accepted the offer. His cousin contacted a social worker - Ms M (the 'social worker') - who mentioned that an unmarried woman in the community - the birth mother - was expecting a child and was unable to take care of the baby due to her complex family circumstances.[7]
3. The Applicant's mother adds that the social worker had told them the unborn child was at risk as the birth mother could not continue the pregnancy without financial and emotional support. She was distressed as she had no income and financially broken while bearing the child in socially unacceptable circumstances. The birth mother considered that her options were to have an abortion or hide the pregnancy until the child was delivered safely. It was agreed that the parents would adopt the child after she was born, and in the meantime, they would support the birth mother.[8]
4. The parents submit it is customary in Sri Lanka for important matters to be conducted through verbal promises and commitments rather than legal or contractual arrangements. Should they have initiated a legal or formal agreement, it may have insulted the birth mother, cast doubt on their sincerity, or created fear.[9] Consequently, the birth mother and the parents did not enter into a written agreement or contract asserting their commitment to accept the Applicant. The arrangements and supports they provided to the birth mother were not documented or formalised.
5. Upon agreeing that they would adopt the child upon its birth, the parents asked the social worker to care for the birth mother and provide all necessary assistance during pregnancy and after delivering the Applicant, on their behalf. Another of the father's cousins would coordinate between the birth mother and the social worker for handing over money, delivering essentials and making visits as needed. The social worker provided continuous updates on the well-being of the birth mother and the unborn child to the parents. They received regular confirmation regarding the pregnancy including medical reports and scans. The mother met with the birth mother on numerous occasions prior to the birth to ensure that they were both kept healthy and safe and created a warm, caring environment for them.
6. The birth mother was content with the arrangement and reassured that the parents would care for her child. They had a mutual respect for each other, and the mother explained in broken English and Tamil her future plans for the Applicant.[10]
7. In a statement, the Applicant's mother writes that from mid-December 2018 - about six months before the Applicant was born - she and the father frequently communicated with the social worker by phone, WhatsApp messages, spot visits, and text messages to demonstrate their full commitment and support for both the birth mother and child. The social worker kept them updated on the parental care and baby's development. The father gave evidence he met the birth mother in February and April 2019, and on other occasions.
8. The day the Applicant was born, the mother went to the hospital to visit the birth mother and to meet her daughter. The birth mother asked the mother to provide a name for the child. The mother consulted the father, and the name that was eventually chosen appears on the birth certificate. Although the birth mother is Hindu, the Applicant was given a Muslim name, which they submit demonstrates they chose her name.
9. After the Applicant was born, the parents continued to maintain contact and view the Applicant's growth through photos and videos that were sent to them. They provided all emotional and financial support for postnatal care, vaccinations and baby checkups, and covered necessary newborn expenses for clothing, milk formula, bedding and toys.
10. The Applicant was given into the care of her mother when she was five months old. Her parents explained that local law required the birth mother to breastfeed the baby until she was five months old at which point they proceeded to court for the official legal handover, and the court order was given to take the child. They claim the Applicant would have been taken into their care sooner had it not been for delays caused by the court's requirement that proceedings be translated into three languages.
11. The father was in Australia when the Applicant was born. He said that he returned to Australia a few days before her birth because of civil unrest in Sri Lanka. The Applicant has provided evidence confirming civil unrest in the area after suicide bombings and terrorist attacks targeting Christians killed 250 people. The attacks, which occurred about two weeks before the Applicant's birth - caused some Muslims to fear retaliation and led to a rise in religious tensions in his hometown.[11]
12. Shortly after the father arrived in Australia, the birth mother was admitted to hospital, at which point he transferred money to her. He also transferred money to her on 6 May 2019 after the child was born. Having returned to Australia on 1 May 2019, the father did not return to Sri Lanka until 14 February 2020, by which time the Applicant was ten months old, owing to obligations he was required to attend to.[12]

Evidence of support provided to the birth mother

1. The father gave evidence at the hearing and was questioned by the Minister's representative. He confirmed that he met the social worker in February 2019, after she had contacted him in December 2018. Through his cousin, the social worker had been made aware that he was looking to adopt a child. He said that between December 2018 and 5 May 2019 there was communication and money transfers and that he visited the birth mother on 20 February. He estimated that he transferred approximately $200 to be given to the birth mother in December 2018, which was passed to her through the social worker.
2. His evidence was that he first gave money to the social worker to transfer to the birth mother when the birth mother was three months pregnant. At that point he had not met the birth mother, but was communicating with her through the social worker. He communicated with the social worker through WhatsApp, phone calls or his cousin. He said that the birth mother was hiding the birth and she did not want people to know about it. He said that they did not take the Applicant straight away because he was advised by his lawyer that they needed to let the child breastfeed for five months.
3. In support of his evidence, the father relied on the screenshots and transcripts of WhatsApp messages between him and the social worker, which he says demonstrate that he was communicating with her from 17 December 2018 about the Applicant.[13] Also in evidence are copies of deposit slips from 26 December 2018 to 12 February 2019.[14] He claims that the deposit slips, which are difficult to read, match up with the promises that were made in the WhatsApp messages to provide money for the birth mother. Screenshots also appear to confirm that photos of the Applicant were sent to him via WhatsApp the day she was born.
4. A letter dated 17 July 2023 states that the author privately rented his property to the father and mother from 25 December 2018 to 24 December 2019 for the purpose of being occupied by the birth mother.[15]
5. A letter from an attorney in Sri Lanka dated 18 March 2024 states that he rendered legal services to the father through his 'agent', the social worker, between January 2019 and August 2020. The attorney assisted the Applicant's father to prepare and lodge legal documents in the District Court and other government departments, before and after the Applicant's birth.[16]
6. A transcript of WhatsApp audio messages records the social worker telling the father that the birth mother was suffering and asking why she had been subjected to hardship. The social worker said that the birth mother had also sent her a voice message stating that she had nowhere to live, and that it had become necessary to keep the birth mother at her place.[17] In the context of this message exchange, the father was asked about his claim to have provided accommodation for the birth mother from December 2018 to December 2019. The father gave evidence that while the birth mother had access to the accommodation he had provided, she was staying with the social worker because she wanted her support. With the birth mother living with her, the social worker had someone she could leave her own children with, making it a mutually beneficial arrangement.
7. On the second day of hearing, having had the benefit of reviewing the transcript of both the WhatsApp audio messages and the first day of hearing, the father gave evidence that he had been confused and provided incorrect information when asked about the audio transcript. He gave evidence that the birth mother was concerned that she needed to find a job after the adoption, and the social worker had meant it may become necessary for the birth mother to stay at her place, not that it had.

1. Regarding the application for citizenship lodged on the Applicant's behalf by her parents in September 2020, it is not disputed that bogus documents and misleading information were provided in support of the application. The Applicant's mother gave evidence that she had been provided electronic copies of documents that she uploaded with the application without having checked the documents she was provided by the social worker. Where asked to provide the name of the birth mother, the mother had provided her own. She gave evidence she had incorrectly claimed the Applicant to be her biological daughter because she considered her to be her daughter.
2. When the Applicant's father was asked about the first citizenship application, he explained that the mother had completed the application incorrectly because she was confused. She also provided a document that she had been provided without checking it first. It subsequently transpired that the document falsely recorded the mother as the biological mother of the Applicant. He denied it was a deliberate attempt to present the Applicant's mother as her birth mother, and explained it was a simple misunderstanding which was further complicated by other people providing incorrect documents to the mother.

1. A statement made by the birth mother dated 25 February 2021 is in evidence.[18] In the statement she writes of her relief upon finding out that the Applicant's parents planned to adopt her unborn child. She writes that she expected to 'handover' the child as soon as she gave birth. She also notes there was no formal written agreement regarding any elements of the 'exchange'.
2. The birth mother writes the father appointed the social worker as his representative and confirms having received financial support from the father via the social worker. The birth mother did not have a bank account, and the social worker collected the money which had been provided by the father and gave it to her on his behalf. The social worker also helped her with clinical appointments, buying groceries, medicines, vitamins, domestic assistance as well as emotional, pre-natal and postnatal care.

1. In a statement dated 20 November 2020, the social worker confirms having met the parents through the father's cousin, who explained their desire to have their child. The cousin told her that they were considering adopting a child and asked her to provide an 'option to adopt an unborn child upon its birth'.
2. The social worker was aware that the birth mother was pregnant and experiencing family problems. She also knew that the birth mother was looking for someone to support her financially and emotionally, and a couple that could provide a bright future for her unborn child. It was a perfect opportunity to bring together two parties who could fulfil a common interest.
3. The social worker says the Applicant's parents instructed her to find a domestic helper to look after the birth mother and her needs prior to giving birth and until handing the child over for adoption. The social worker could not find an honest and trustworthy person to perform the function, and the father asked the social worker whether he could pay her to do it, which she agreed.
4. The social worker confirms that the father paid for everything including medicines, vitamins, food and rent. As the birth mother did not have a bank account, the normal arrangement was that the father gave the money to his cousin and his cousin would then deposit the money into her account. The social worker provided the birth mother with some spending money and did all her shopping. She also confirmed that the support and arrangement was provided informally based on trust, with evidence able to be provided through WhatsApp, messages and photos.[19]

1. The issue to be determined is whether the Applicant satisfies s16(2) of the Act by having a parent who was an Australian citizen at the time of her birth. The Applicant's parents contend that by caring for their daughter prior to her birth and after, they - who are both Australian citizens - assumed the role of a parent for their daughter 'by virtue of the strength of attachment arising between the child and that other person'.[20]
2. It is relevant and not disputed that false information and bogus documentation was provided by the adoptive parents to support the Applicant's first citizenship application. Considerable time has passed since lodging the application in 2020. However, aspects of the evidence given at the hearing reinforced the need for cautious consideration of the evidence. For example, both parents maintain that they unknowingly provided bogus documents to support the first application. I do not accept this explanation in circumstances where the bogus documents were consistent with incorrect information provided in the citizenship application.
3. The policy in CPI 14 reflects the decision in H v Minister. A parent may be non-biological, and determination of whether a person is a parent is a question of fact that should be made on a case-by-case basis having considered all the relevant information including biological, legal and social factors.[21]
4. The Applicant's parents have stated that documenting the agreement they had with the birth mother would have been inappropriate, which is confirmed by the birth mother and social worker in their statements. The parents appear to have acknowledged the Applicant and their intention to adopt the child in messages before she was born. Before the Applicant's birth, her parents contend they provided financial support and other care to the birth mother during pregnancy. The evidence of having made a financial contribution to the birth mother during this period is not compelling, particularly as contributions are claimed to have been provided through intermediaries. While cash deposit slips and a bank statement have been provided, they do not demonstrate financial support was provided to the birth mother, only to the social worker.
5. The Applicant's father provided two explanations for the messages regarding the birth mother having to reside with the social worker, neither of which are credible. The father's initial explanation, subsequently withdrawn, was by his own admission speculative. The messages have a sense of urgency and strongly indicate the birth mother did not have a place to live when they were sent - which was during the period the parents claim to have rented premises for her exclusive use. On balance, the parents' claim to have provided accommodation for the birth mother throughout her pregnancy and after delivery of the child is not supported by the evidence.
6. There is some evidence of updates on the birth mother having been provided to the parents by the social worker prior to the Applicant's birth. However, the contact between the parents and the birth mother was infrequent, and it follows that the emotional and practical in-person support provided to the birth mother by the Applicant's parents was limited.
7. Neither of the Applicant's parents were present at her birth. The Applicant's father had returned to Australia shortly before she was born and did not meet her until she was 10 months old. He says that the birth mother was admitted to hospital soon after he arrived in Australia on 1 May 2019. The Applicant's mother, who was in Sri Lanka, visited the birth mother four days later when her daughter was born.
8. The Applicant was born in May 2019, and her parents claim to have taken the Applicant into their care in September 2019. They say the handover was delayed because of factors including the pandemic, political unrest and a legal requirement to breastfeed the Applicant for six months. There is no evidence of a legal requirement to breastfeed before the Tribunal. Political unrest may explain why the Applicant's father was in Australia when she was born, but it is unclear how the pandemic delayed the child's handover.
9. A person can 'support' a child, and the biological mother of a child, financially, socially, culturally and emotionally without being physically present, but there must be sufficient evidence to support them having done so.[22] In this matter, there is limited evidence that the parents supported the birth mother - emotionally or practically - before the Applicant's birth. The court order certifying the adoption was made in March 2020, and the Applicant's parents did not take her into their care until she was five months old.
10. Overall, the evidence does not support a finding that either of the Applicant's parents were her parents at the time of her birth.

1. CPI 14 calls on decision makers to carefully scrutinise evidence provided to ensure it has not been manufactured and weigh up all relevant evidence relating to a claimed parent-child relationship at the time of a child's birth. Having cautiously considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Applicant's parents were her parents at the time of birth and as such she did not have an Australian citizen parent at the time she was born.
2. It follows that the Applicant does not satisfy s16(2)(a) of the Act and the reviewable decision will be affirmed.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

Mr R Turner, Mr Dominic Wilcox, Ray Turner Immigration Lawyers

[5] H v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 119

[20] See McMullen v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 638 [21]

[22] See Lumumba v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2022] FCA 1523