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.

3. Section 22(1) of the Act provides the following provisions as relevant to the general residence requirement:

(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.

4. Sections 22(1A) and 22(1B) provide for allowances of overseas absences for the purposes of ss 22(1)(a) and (c) of the Act as follows:

(1A) If: > > (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. > > (1B) If: > > (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.

5. Sections 22(2), (4A), (5), (5A), (6), (9) and (11) provide for partial exemptions or the exercise of Ministerial discretions in relation to the requirements of s 22(1) of the Act. Relevantly, s 22(9) contains the following Ministerial discretion:

(9) If the person is the spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen at the time the person made the application, 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 a spouse or de facto partner of that Australian citizen during that period; and > > (b) the person was not present in Australia during that period; and > > (c) the person was a permanent resident during that period; and > > (d) the Minister is satisfied that the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.

1. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (policy) outlines the legislative requirements for citizenship, the rights and responsibilities of an Australian citizen, and other citizenship related matters.[1] It provides guidance to decision-makers regarding the interpretation and exercise of powers under the Act. Whilst not binding on the Tribunal, it is required to have regard to and apply policy unless there are cogent reasons not to.[2] The Tribunal finds that there are no cogent reasons not to apply the policy.
2. The relevant Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) that provide guidance in this case are Citizenship Procedural Instruction 8 - Residence Requirements and Discretions (CPI 8) and Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 - Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia (CPI 11).[3]
3. CPI 8 relevantly states:

'The discretion can only be applied to periods when:

• the Applicant was a spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of the Australian citizen during that period; and
• the Applicant was not present in Australia during that period; and
• the Applicant was a permanent resident during that period; and
• the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period. Refer to CPI-11 - Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.'

1. Relevantly, CPI 11 provides guidance as follows:[4]

Likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia > > The words comprising the phrase 'likely to maintain a close and continuing association' are given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Macquarie Dictionary Online defines:

• '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.

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. > > 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.

Note: membership of a club or other body in itself is not likely to amount to participation in the Australian community; nor is usage of a club's facilities for private purposes when in Australia. For example, a person who is outside Australia may still contribute to activities to improve the facilities of a golf club for the benefit of the community by donating funds, participating in fundraising activities, or donating their time and skills in other ways, such as through computer based work or time serving on a committee.

1. CPI 11 outlines a number of factors that may be relevant to assessing whether an Applicant has maintained a close and continuing association with Australia. They include:

a) pre-existing connection with Australia. > > b) employment status. > > c) financial. > > 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. > > 1. applicants who claim they will return to Australia.

1. The issue for determination is whether the Applicant satisfied the general residence requirement in s 21(4)(d) of the Act at the time of the application for Australian citizenship and if not, whether the Applicant can receive Ministerial discretion under s 22(9) of the Act, which allows the Minister to treat a period of absence as one in which the person was present in Australia.
2. This requires the Tribunal to determine whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during his periods of absence from Australia in the four years immediately before the day he made the application for Australian citizenship and the 12 months immediately before the date he made the application for Australian citizenship.
3. The Applicant contends that he maintained a close and continuing association with Australia during the four years leading up to his application for citizenship. The Minister maintains that he did not.

1. The Tribunal has before it the following material contained in the Hearing Book:
   • Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 19 August 2025.[5]
   • Applicant's statement and response to the Respondent's statement.[6]
   • Share portfolio documents.[7]
   • Engineers Australia membership documents.[8]
   • Employment documents.[9]
   • Professional associations including The Institution of Engineers Australia, APEC Engineer Coordinating Committee and The Institutions of Engineering and Technology.[10]
   • Residential rental agreements and invoices.[11]
   • Bank statements for accounts held by the applicant, his son and his daughter.[12]
   • Statements from the Applicant's son[13] and daughter.[14]
   • Optus bills in the Applicant's daughter's name.[15]
   • Identity documents including birth certificate, passport and licence.[16]
   • Marriage certificate.[17]
   • Ambulance Victoria Membership receipts.[18]
   • Diabetes Victoria membership receipt and donation.[19]
   • Certificate of Registration as a Registered Professional Engineer with the Victorian Business Licensing Authority.[20]
   • Applicant's Saudi Arabia Muqeem report [21], criminal clearance certificate,[22] and proof of address.[23]
   • Applicant's wife's Saudi Arabia resident identity and detail pages of Australian passport.[24]
   • Applicant's wife and children's certificates of Australian citizenship.[25]
   • Applicant's statement in support of his citizenship application.[26]
2. A hearing was held on 1 December 2025 via Microsoft Teams. Mr. Ben Nam from Clayton Utz appeared for the Minister. The Applicant was self-represented. The Applicant's son and daughter appeared as witnesses. The Applicant was given the opportunity to give evidence, ask questions and make oral submissions.

1. As outlined above, the general residence requirement in s 22(1) of the Act requires the Applicant to have been present in Australia for the period of four years immediately before the day he made his application for citizenship (s 22(1)(a)) and for the period of 12 months immediately before the day he made the application for citizenship (s 22 (1)(c)). Allowances are made for periods of absence from Australia in ss 22(1A) and 22(1B) of the Act. These provide that a person is taken to have been present in Australia if the total period of absence or absences during the four year period in s 22(1)(a) was not more than 12 months[27] or the total period of absence or absences during the 12 month period in s 22(1)(c) was not more than 90 days and the person was a permanent resident during each period of absence.[28]
2. The Respondent contends that in the four years prior to his application, the Applicant had been absent from Australia for a total of 1332 days, which meant he was absent for approximately 91% of that period. The Respondent submitted that this was in excess of the 12-month allowance for absences provided by s 22(1A) of the Act. Further, in the 12 months prior to his application, the Applicant had been absent from Australia for the entirety of the 12-month period, being 365 days. This was also in excess of the 90 days allowance for absences provided by s 22 (1B) of the Act. Accordingly, the Respondent submitted the Applicant does not satisfy the general residence requirement.
3. Movement records indicate that the Applicant arrived in Australia on 9 March 2020 and departed the country on 7 October 2020. The Applicant arrived in Australia again on 12 July 2022 and departed on 30 July 2022. He has not returned to Australia since.[29]
4. In the Applicant's statement submitted to the Tribunal he disputed the Respondent's contention that when he travelled to Australia in March 2020, he remained here for a period of 65 days. On the basis of the movement records, as discussed above, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's submission. It finds the Applicant was in Australia in 2020 for a period of 212 days, as opposed to 65 days.
5. The Applicant applied for citizenship on 20 June 2024, therefore the four-year period immediately before the day he made the citizenship application commences on 20 June 2020. The Tribunal finds, on the basis of the movement records, that in the period between 20 June 2020 and 20 June 2024, the Applicant was in Australia for 231 days, exceeding the total period of absence of 12 months allowed under section 22(1A) of the Act.
6. The Tribunal also finds on the basis that the Applicant has not returned to Australia since he departed the country on 30 July 2022 that the total period of absence during the 12 months prior to his application for citizenship was more than the 90 days allowed for by s 22(1B).
7. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the Applicant does not satisfy the general residence requirement outlined in s 22 of the Act as he has not spent the required days in Australia.

Discretion in s 29 of the Act

1. It is not in dispute that the Applicant satisfies the criteria in ss 22(9)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act as he is married to an Australian citizen, he was not present in Australia during the relevant period and is a permanent resident. What is in dispute is whether the Applicant had a close and continuing relationship with Australia during the relevant periods, in order to grant him a favourable exercise of the spousal discretion under s 22(9) of the Act.
2. The discretion in s 22(9) was described in Kumar v MIBP as 'unconfined' except to the extent the subject matter and scope and purpose of the provision might enable particular reasons to be identified as extraneous to that scope and purpose.[30] In Kumar it was noted that, as s 22(9) provides a discretion to overcome the failure by a person to meet the presence in Australia requirement of four years in s 22(1)(a), as well as the presence in Australia requirement of 12 months as a permanent resident in s 22(1)(c), there is potentially a very wide range of different circumstances that might come before the decision-maker, as to the extent of the failure to meet the presence in Australia requirements and the reason or reasons for those failures.
3. The Full Court of the Federal Court in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Han (2015) FCR 113 held that the purpose of provisions such as s 22(9) is to qualify or ameliorate the strictness of the general residence requirement.[31] The Court noted that the intent of s 22(9) was to ensure that spouses of Australian citizens meet the same criteria as other adult applicants and not merely rely on a spousal relationship.[32] However, the Court held it is equally evident that this section was intended to confer a discretion upon the Minister to "waive" part or all of the residence requirement for the spouse of an Australian citizen who could demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia.[33]
4. The term 'close and continuing association' was described in Judd v MIBP as having its ordinary meaning and as a broad concept that requires a multi-factorial approach.[34] It requires more than some evidence of a relevant kind of association, rather it is to be objectively assessed and requires a qualitative assessment of the ultimate significance of an applicant's circumstances.[35]
5. In order to satisfy the requirements of s 22(9)(d), the Tribunal must be satisfied the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the 4-year period immediately before the day he made the citizenship application. As the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship on 20 June 2024, the relevant period is from 20 June 2020 to 20 June 2024.

Employment status and overseas employment or business

1. The Respondent submitted that during the relevant four-year period, the Applicant worked as an Engineer Manager for a company located in Saudi Arabia. Prior to this, the Applicant had worked for more than 30 years in the Middle East with one of the "biggest electric companies in the region" and some of the biggest international engineering consulting companies as an Engineering Manager/Senior Construction Manager and General Manager, as he himself described.[36] It was noted by the Respondent that the Applicant was not on leave from employment in Australia while he was working overseas or working for any Australian based organisations. Further, whilst the Applicant's spouse also appears to have been working overseas as a Genomics Laboratory Specialist with King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Hospital in Saudi Arabia during the relevant period (since 23 May 2014), the evidence did not establish that the Applicant had accompanied his Australian citizen spouse overseas for work.
2. The Respondent contended that despite the fact the Applicant maintained his qualifications and accreditations for a significant period of time, the Applicant had not worked in Australia during the relevant period. Although the Applicant contributed financially to various professional bodies to maintain his registration and licence as a Chartered Professional Engineer, it was noted that the Applicant had not used these registrations and memberships to work in Australian companies, despite these registrations allowing the Applicant to act as a Professional Engineer in Australia. As such the Respondent submitted that these registrations should be given minimal weight in circumstances where the registrations can be maintained solely by paying fees.
3. The Applicant submitted that he does not hold a permanent residency permit in Saudi Arabia but is on a working visa of one year duration which is tied to his employment contract and can be renewed for another year if his employment contract is renewed, or he is provided a contract from a different employer. He stated that when he returned to Australia in 2020, he came with the intention of staying, however after 7 months, he had been unsuccessful in securing employment. When he received an offer from his previous employer in Saudia Arabia, he returned there. The Applicant submitted a service certificate from Systra Branch Saudi Arabia dated 19 January 2025, certifying that he was employed as Engineering Manager - Utilities from 5 December 2020 to 20 January 2025.[37]
4. The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant's evidence that when he travelled to Australia in March 2020, it was with the intention of staying here permanently. However, after a period of several months during which he was unable to find suitable employment in Australia, the Applicant returned to Saudi Arabia (where he had previously worked for many years) upon receiving a job offer. The Tribunal also acknowledges the ties the Applicant has to various professional bodies in Australia including The Institutions of Engineers (Australia), Engineers Australia, and the Victorian Business Licensing Authority. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence that his association with some of these organisations goes back many years prior to the relevant period.
5. However, the Tribunal finds the Applicant's past employment has primarily been in Saudi Arabia. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's evidence that he had worked in Saudia Arabia for 9 years initially before he got permanent residency in Australia. In 2001, he arrived in Australia with the intention of staying "for good" however he failed to get employment in the first 6 months apart from an offer from an Australian company to work in Iraq, so he decided to return to Saudi Arabia.[38] It is therefore apparent from the Applicant's evidence, that he has never worked in Australia, despite his registration and membership of various professional bodies. In the relevant period, between 20 June 2020 and 20 June 2024, the only employment he had was in Saudi Arabia, albeit that it was on a temporary basis given that it accepts the Applicant's evidence that his employment was on a yearly contractual basis. While the Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant's submission that he did not have permanent residency or long-term employment contracts in Saudi Arabia, the Tribunal finds that the only employment the Applicant had during the relevant period was in Saudi Arabia despite the temporary nature of his employment contracts. Given the Applicant's long history of employment in Saudi Arabia in the circumstances described by the Applicant, which includes the 4-year period preceding his application for citizenship, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that this factor should be given relatively modest weight in favour of the Applicant.
6. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's evidence regarding what appears to be his and his wife's circumstances in Saudi Arabia including that his contract with his employer, Systra, was not extended beyond January 2025 as the project he was working on was completed, at his age it is difficult for him to get an employment contract in Saudi Arabia, and that his wife is working with a special contract renewal beyond the age of retirement (60 years) which is unlikely to be renewed for another year as it has already been extended twice. However, as discussed above, the Tribunal is required to determine whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period. The Tribunal is of the view that these considerations are more relevant to the Applicant's current and future employment situation.
7. The Applicant provided evidence of shares that he held in various Australian companies including ANZ, BHP, Commonwealth Bank, Coles, NAB, Telstra and Vanguard Australia,[39] and a statement for a bank account in his name with the National Australia Bank.[40] The Respondent noted that with respect to the shares, the report submitted by the Applicant is dated 4 June 2024, so is not indicative that the Applicant was holding these shares during the majority of the 4 year period before the date of application for citizenship. In any event, the Respondent submitted that ownership of shares is not sufficient to demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia.
8. The Applicant submitted evidence which showed the dates on which he had purchased the shares which indicated that he had acquired them at various times in the 4 years prior to his application for citizenship.[41] He contended whether he had purchased the shares inside or outside of Australia, it provides the same benefit to Australia's economy. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's contention that him having shares provides a financial benefit to Australia (as well as himself), it does not consider that his ownership of shares establishes that he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
9. With respect to the Applicant's NAB bank account, the Respondent contended that this could be managed from overseas and submitted that this demonstrates little evidence of the Applicant's close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant periods. The Applicant similarly contended that the existence of his savings account, which has a substantial balance, is a benefit to the Australian economy as it contributes positively to the cash flow for banking institutions. The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant's maintenance of a savings account in Australia which he has utilised to transfer money for the purposes of his children's expenses (and his expenses during the 212 days he was present in Australia during the relevant period). However, the Tribunal does not consider the existence of a savings account to facilitate the transfer of funds, even if those funds are to be used in Australia by the Applicant's children, demonstrates the Applicant had a close and continuing connection with Australia during the relevant periods.

Return travel to, and periods of residence in, Australia

1. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that in the 4-year period immediately before the day the application for citizenship by conferral was made by the Applicant (between 20 June 2020 and 20 June 2024), he was absent from Australia except for a period of 128 days.[42]
2. The Applicant confirmed that during his stay in Australia in 2020 he was residing at the Manhattan Apartments in Notting Hill. The Applicant provided an invoice dated 29 September 2020 for the rental of a two-bedroom apartment with an arrival date of 23 March 2020 and departure date of 8 October 2020.[43] In July 2022, the Applicant's evidence was that he stayed with his son and daughter at an address in Clayton. The Applicant submitted lease contracts for this residence dated 21 March 2022 and 18 January 2023 in his son and daughter's names.[44] The Applicant also submitted that his current address is an address in Carnegie, where his son and daughter live.[45] The Tribunal notes the lease contract is dated 5 March 2024 and provides the Applicant's son and daughter as the renters party to the agreement. While the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may financially support his children by paying for their rental accommodation in Australia, it does not consider this equates to residence in Australia for himself.
3. The Applicant also submitted that he owned a property in Altona North from 2001 to 2008. The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant may have established a home in Australia in the past. However, it notes that this was over a decade before the relevant period and therefore considers this to be of limited relevance to its determination of whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the 4-year (and 12 month) period prior to his application.
4. The Tribunal refers to the decision MIBP v Tran [2015] FCA 546 where the Court held that nothing in the legislative scheme supports the conclusion that the relative length of time a person has been within and outside Australia over the relevant 4 year period before the application was made is an irrelevant or prohibited consideration in relation to assessing 'close and continuing association' in s 22(9)(d) or the overall discretion in s 22(9).[46] Considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant did not spend any significant periods of time in Australia during the relevant periods. He was present for just 128 days (and absent for 1332 days) in the four years before his citizenship application and zero days in the 12 months preceding the application. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's contention that a person's residence in Australia is just one of various factors which can be relevant to the assessment of a close and continuing association, however it is an important factor particularly in circumstances where the Applicant has been overwhelmingly absent from Australia during the relevant period. The Tribunal finds that physical presence in Australia, although not determinative, is an important element in the development of a close and continuing association with Australia.[47] As such, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's physical absence for substantial periods during the relevant period to be a significant factor that weighs against a finding of a close and continuing association with Australia.

1. The Respondent submitted that there is very limited evidence before the Tribunal demonstrating that in the 4 years prior to his application, the Applicant had any meaningful intention to reside in Australia. It was noted that there was no evidence that during the relevant time the Applicant had maintained a residence or owned property in Australia or that he had belongings in storage in Australia. While the Respondent acknowledged the Applicant's children had signed a lease for a rental property from 3 April 2024 to 2 October 2025 and that the Applicant had transferred money from his overseas account to his NAB account in Australia for his son and daughter to spend on expenses in Australia which shows some connection to Australia, it was submitted that this did not show sufficient connection overall.
2. The Applicant claimed in his personal statement that as a family they plan to be united in Australia. He claimed that he and his wife intend to sell property they own in Sudan and use the proceeds of the sale, as well as their end of service benefits presumably from Saudi Arabia given that is where they have both worked for many years now, to purchase a large house to accommodate all his family members which includes his son and daughter living in Australia. The Applicant referred to the fact that his wife is currently working in Saudi Arabia on a special contract renewal beyond the age of retirement however this is unlikely to be renewed as it has already been extended twice.[48]
3. As discussed above, the Applicant owned property in Australia from 2001 to 2008. Since his son and daughter returned to Australia from Saudi Arabia to complete their tertiary education, they have been living in rental accommodation paid for by the Applicant. In the hearing, when asked if he had any belongings in Australia, the Applicant explained that his children have some kitchen hardware and things that they had used before and which he did not want thrown away. The Tribunal has some serious concerns that in circumstances where the Applicant's family last maintained a household in Australia more than a decade ago (possibly two decades), that they would have saved such items.
4. The Applicant provided evidence that when he travelled to Australia in March 2020, it was with the intention of staying here permanently. However, in the hearing he discussed the difficulty he experienced finding employment and securing a mortgage during the 7 months he was in Australia, and his return to Saudi Arabia where he was able to secure a job and continue to financially support his family, as he had for many years in the past. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's actions demonstrate any intent the Applicant had to settle in Australia was not significant and overblown by competing priorities. The Respondent submitted that should the Tribunal find that the Applicant may have had an intent to reside in Australia at that time (although it was noted by the Respondent there is no documentary evidence to support this assertion) it was an entirely diminished intent during the relevant time.
5. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the Applicant's evidence that he worked overseas to support his children financially to live in Australia and to provide them with a better living standard until they become engineers with full time permanent employment in Australia.[49] This is substantiated by bank documents submitted by the Applicant which evidences the Applicant's regular transfer of money to his children to pay for their living expenses in Australia. It accepts the Applicant's son and daughter's evidence that the Applicant provided them with considerable financial assistance including funding two return flights each year between Australia and Saudi Arabia to visit their family there.[50] In light of this evidence, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission regarding the Applicant's priorities and conviction to establish his life in Australia when he was here in 2020.
6. The Tribunal finds the Applicant's evidence suggests that it is his intention to return to Australia once he and his wife have exhausted their avenues for employment in Saudi Arabia. It accepts as plausible that the Applicant plans to liquidate his assets in Sudan and use his and his wife's end of service benefits to purchase a family home in Australia where they plan to live with at least 2 of their 3 children. However, given the evidence before it that the Applicant's employment with Systra commenced in December 2021 and continued until January 2025 with the completion of the project the Applicant was working on, his wife's apparent continued employment in Saudi Arabia, and the Applicant's commitment to financially supporting his children's studies and living expenses in Australia, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant held an intention to reside in Australia during a significant portion of the relevant period (4 years preceding the application for citizenship).

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant is married to an Australian citizen and that he has Australian citizen children, two of whom are currently living in Australia. The Applicant's daughter's evidence in the hearing was that she returned to Australia from Saudi Arabia in March 2020 to complete her Masters, after completing a Bachelor of Engineering in Sudan. The Applicant's son's evidence in the hearing was that he first came to Australia as a child, around 2001 or 2002 and returned to Saudi Arabia. He then came back to Australia in 2018 to pursue his undergraduate degree. According to the applicant, his third child is living in Saudi Arabia and is working as a doctor.
2. The Applicant provided evidence in the hearing about his participation in local community and Arabic community events when residing in Altona. He also spoke about professional and personal associations he had with various people living in Australia. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has several friends and associates who reside in Australia, and he may have engaged in some community events, it has taken into consideration the Applicant's evidence in the hearing that he left Australia and returned to Saudi Arabia 6 months after arriving here in 2001 with his family and buying their home, and between 2004 and 2014 he was living in Saudi Arabia with all his family members, during which he did not return to Australia. According to movement records, he subsequently travelled to Australia on 4 May 2014 and departed on 18 May 2014 and again on 15 February 2018, departing on 6 March 2018, before he spent 7 months here in 2020 and 19 days in 2022.[51] Given the limited amount of time the Applicant has spent living in Australia, it does not find the Applicant's ties to the community through his engagement in events or his friendship ties particularly strong.
3. The Tribunal also accepts, as discussed above, that the Applicant has maintained registration and licences as a Chartered Professional Engineer with multiple organisations in Australia (and overseas) over many years, including during the relevant period, that he holds shares in a number of Australian companies and has made donations to Ambulance Victoria and Victoria Diabetes Society in 2024 as evidenced by the documents submitted.
4. While the Respondent conceded that the Applicant's family connections weigh in favour of finding a close and continuing association with Australia, with respect to the Applicant's other pre-existing ties such as donations to Ambulance Victoria and Victoria Diabetes Society, as well as registrations with Australian engineering associations, it was noted that CP11 stated that "membership of a club or other body in itself is not likely to amount to participation in the Australian community". The Tribunal does not consider the Applicant's membership of professional bodies such as Engineers Australia and APEC Engineering Monitoring Committee or Diabetes Australia, and his donations to Ambulance Victoria and Diabetes Australia, demonstrate a close and continuing connection with Australia. While it accepts the Applicant's financial contributions, particularly donations, benefits the Australian community as was submitted by the Applicant, this is distinct from participating in the community. As was noted in Hammad v MICMSMA [2022] FCA 833, this may properly affect the assessment of the degree of closeness of the association.[52] The Tribunal does not find what is essentially the payment of money to these various organisations constitutes community engagement. Similarly, the Tribunal does not consider the Applicant's claimed online activities and communications with the various professional bodies he is associated with whilst he was residing in Saudi Arabia or having to maintain his skills by participating in continued professional development (CPD), as he discussed in the hearing, sufficient to establish a close and continuing association with Australia.

1. The Respondent noted that as the Applicant has been residing and been employed overseas for long periods of time, it is unlikely he paid any income tax during the relevant period. Accordingly, the Respondent submitted this demonstrates a lack of close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
2. The Applicant confirmed that during the 4 years prior to his application, he had not made any payment of income tax in Australia. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's submissions regarding the payment of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in relation to goods and services obtained in Australia. As the Applicant himself identified, GST is payable by anyone spending money in Australia, whether they are a citizen or a visitor to the country. While the Applicant may have provided the funds for which his children paid for goods and services in Australia during the relevant period, thereby paying GST, and that this may have amounted to a considerable amount over the 4 years, as the Applicant suggested, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this demonstrates that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia in the circumstances.
3. The Applicant made submissions that he has made significant contributions financially to the Australian economy by supporting his son and daughter. The Tribunal accepts based on the bank statements submitted by the Applicant that he has regularly transferred money to his children residing in Australia to support them whilst they have engaged in their tertiary studies. The Tribunal notes that whilst the Respondent acknowledged the Applicant's spending on expenses inside Australia shows some connection to Australia, it was submitted that this does not show sufficient connection overall. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent's contention. It is apparent from the Applicant's evidence that a significant proportion, if not all, the money he transferred during the relevant period was for the purpose of maintaining his children's residence in Australia whilst they continued their education.
4. Although the Tribunal appreciates that the Applicant has made financial contributions to the Australian economy in various ways including holding shares in various Australian companies, having a savings account which he transfers substantial amounts of money into, and providing funds for the payment of general living expenses by his children, the Tribunal does not accept that these financial considerations establish that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia as required by s 22(9).

1. The Certificates of Australian Citizenship for the Applicant's wife and three children confirm they were granted citizenship on 31 May 2004.[53] As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant's immediate family members were Australian citizens during the relevant periods. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has been in a long-standing relationship with his wife since 14 August 1992 and that she has been living with him in Saudi Arabia. It accepts the Applicant's son and daughter have been living in Australia for several years now, including during the relevant periods based on their oral evidence in the hearing that his son returned to Australia from Saudi Arabia in 2018 to pursue an undergraduate degree and his daughter returned in 2020 to complete her Masters. The Applicant confirmed in the hearing that he does not have any extended family in Australia.
2. The Respondent submitted that despite the Applicant's ties to his Australian citizen family, he is required to demonstrate, in accordance with the statutory requirement, his close and continuing association with Australia, as opposed to Australians. The Respondent noted that CP11 provides that a close and continuing association with immediate 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. It was also submitted that during the relevant period, the Applicant did not appear to make regular visits to his Australian family, having only returned to Australia on two occasions. In this respect, the Tribunal observes the evidence of the Applicant's son and daughter that the Applicant paid for their yearly travel to visit him and the rest of their immediate family in Saudi Arabia.
3. Taking into consideration that the requirement is for a close and continuing association 'with Australia', rather than Australians,[54] and the submissions of the Respondent as discussed above, the Tribunal finds the Applicant's association with his Australian citizen wife and children not sufficient to meet this requirement.

1. As the Respondent submitted at the conclusion of the hearing, the question the Tribunal must determine is whether the spousal discretion provision is enlivened in circumstances where the Applicant does not meet the residence requirements. Within that single criterion, the issue in dispute is whether the Applicant had a close and continuing connection with Australia during his absences from Australia in the 4 years prior to his application for citizenship. The Respondent contended that this does not involve answering questions such as whether the Applicant has made significant contributions to Australian financial interests, whether the Applicant has supported raising his children in Australia, or whether his engineering and professional skills would benefit Australian industries. Although the Respondent acknowledged these questions may have some relevance to the ultimate issue for determination, they are quite different. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent's submission.
2. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has close ties with Australians, it does not consider that he has demonstrated a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant was living in Saudi Arabia with his wife and daughter and working there (as he has for a considerable number of years) in the 4 years preceding his application for citizenship. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that it is entirely appropriate that a person's physical presence in Australia would be relevant to the question of whether they had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period and the extent of the Applicant's absences from Australia during that time weighs against such a finding.
3. Taking into consideration the material before it, and applying the relevant policy, the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant periods. Accordingly, it finds the spousal discretion is not enlivened and therefore the Applicant does not satisfy the general residence requirement. As such, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

[12] HB pp. 66-67, 69-104,108-113, 124-142, 173, 338-339

[27] s 22(1A)

[28] s 22(1B)

[30] Kumar v MIBP [2015] FCA 446 at [20].

[31] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Han (2015) FCR 113 at [51].

[34] Judd v MIBP [2017] FCA 827 at [14], cited with approval in Hammad v MICMSMA [2022] FCA 833 at [19]. The Court in Judd was considering an application to the Tribunal that relied on the same information in relation to s 21(2)(g) and s 22(9)(d) which was overturned for a breach of procedural fairness. The Court in Hammad was considering an appeal in relation to the Tribunal's consideration of s 22(9)(d).

[35] Judd v MIBP [2017] FCA 827 at [14].

[36] As detailed in applicant's statement dated 19 June 2024 - HB p.390

[42] Which includes 109 days from 20 June 2020 to 7 October 2020, and 19 days from 12 July 2022 to 30 July 2022, as opposed to the 212 days referred to in paragraph 27, which includes the period from 9 March 2020 to 19 June 2020, which falls outside the relevant period.

[46] MIBP v Tran [2015] FCA 546 at [29]

[47] Kim and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, DP Constance.

[52] Hammad v MICMSMA [2022] FCA 833 at [30]

[54] CPIs: Citizenship Policy and Instructions - Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIS) - CPI 11 - Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, at [3.5] (latest version 4/10/2024).