1. On 16 March 2024, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[17] She submitted a number of supporting documents, including:
   1. a copy of the biodata pages of the Applicant's South African passport, an identity declaration by the Applicant, a copy of the Applicant's South African birth certificate, a copy of the Applicant's marriage certificate and a copy of the biodata pages of the Applicant's husband's Australian current and expired passports
   2. a statement of the Applicant in support of her application dated 16 March 2024
   3. a statement of the Applicant in relation to her husband's employment dated 3 March 2024
   4. an undated statement of the Applicant about her travel to the Maldives with an Emirates Flights Statement and an undated list of transactions with Emirates annexed
   5. an invoice addressed to the Applicant from removalists from Dubai to Queensland dated 21 September 2011
   6. a Commonwealth Bank transfer of money receipt dated 2 February 2012
   7. Commonwealth Bank bill payment receipts dated 18 March 2012 and 8 June 2012
   8. a notice of intention to leave rental in Queensland dated 4 June 2012
   9. the Applicant and her husband's tenancy agreement in Victoria dated 21 November 2016
   10. the Applicant's husband's tenancy contract information registration certificate in Dubai dated 31 May 2023
   11. a bundle of HSBC account statements from Dubai dated 28 September 2023 to 28 February 2024
   12. a letter from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to the Applicant dated 27 February 2024
   13. supporting statements from friend Mr Dean Vaughan and the Applicant's sister Ms Julie Barker
   14. a letter from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to the Applicant and her husband dated 11 February 2025 regarding home loan pre-approval
   15. a bundle of photos of the Applicant and her family with captions added
   16. a HSBC account statement from Dubai dated 31 July 2020 with redactions, and
   17. a copy of the Applicant's abridged birth certificate from South Africa.

1. On 31 March 2025, a delegate of the Respondent refused the Applicant's application for Australian citizenship.[18] The delegate found that the Applicant did not satisfy the general residence requirements as set out under s 22(1)(a) and s 22(1)(c) of the Act.[19]
2. In relation to s 22(1)(a), the delegate noted that s 22(1A) allows for absences of up to 12 months within the four years immediately before applying for citizenship. In the Applicant's case, the delegate noted that the Applicant had been absent from Australia for a total of 1,364 days in the four-year period immediately prior to applying for citizenship. This exceeded the allowable absence of 12 months provided for in s 22(1A) of the Act, and therefore the Applicant did not meet the requirement in s 22(1)(a) of the Act. [20]
3. In relation to s 22(1)(c), the delegate noted that s 22(1B) allows for absences of up to 90 days within the 12 months immediately before applying for citizenship.[21] In the Applicant's case, the delegate noted that the Applicant had been absent from Australia for a total of 345 days in the 12-month period immediately prior to applying for citizenship. This exceeded the allowable absence of 90 days provided for in s 22(1B) of the Act, and therefore the Applicant did not meet the requirements in s 22(1)(c) of the Act.[22]
4. The delegate also considered the application of the Ministerial discretion at s 22(9) of the Act to the Applicant's case. The delegate found that the Applicant had only been present in Australia for a total of 97 days in the four years immediately prior to making her application for citizenship, including 20 days within the 12 months immediately before making their application.[23] The delegate found that whilst the Applicant relies on her ongoing relationship with her husband and children who are Australian citizens, as well as extended family members who are residing in Australia as Australian citizens, the Applicant has not demonstrated a close and continuing association with Australia for the purposes of applying the Ministerial discretion.[24] For the reasons specified in the decision record, the delegate decided not to exercise the discretion at s 22(9) of the Act.[25]
5. In addition to the above, the Applicant was outside of Australia at the time of the delegate's decision. The delegate was therefore prohibited under s 24(5) of the Act from approving the Applicant's application while the Applicant was outside of Australia.[26]

1. On 31 March 2205, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate's decision with the Tribunal.[27]
2. On 19 August 2025, the Applicant filed a Statement of Facts and Contentions and annexures. Included in that material were a statement of the Applicant, a residential rental agreement for Victoria dated 20 May 2025, the Applicant's movement records from 1996 to 2024, the applicant's previous Australian driver's licences and Medicare card, a bundle of documents relating to the Applicant residing in Australia in 2001-2002 and a bundle of documents relating to the Applicant residing in Australia in 2011-2012.[28]
3. On 4 November 2025, the Applicant filed statutory declarations by the Applicant's two son's with documents annexed.[29]
4. On 27 March 2025, the Respondent filed its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions and annexures.[30]
5. The Hearing Book, which contained the documentary evidence and each parties Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, was marked 'exhibit 1'. CPI 11 was marked 'exhibit 2'.

1. The hearing was held by video at the Tribunal's Adelaide Registry on 9 December 2025. The Applicant was unrepresented The Respondent was represented by Mr Matthew Humphrey, a solicitor from Minter Ellison. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant, her husband, Mr Garth Braithwaite, her sister, Ms Julie Barker and friend, Mr Dean Vaughan.
2. Following the hearing, the Applicant provided the following documents to the Tribunal:
   1. various emails between Australian Business Council (ABC) and the Applicant, between 3 March 2021 and 24 February 2023 regarding her membership
   2. a letter from the Applicant to Haileybury College dated 5 February 2017 regarding seeking part-time or ad-hoc work
   3. a document relating to an unfinalized application for a working with children check with the Department of Justice and Regulation in Victoria dated 26 February 2017
   4. printouts of Royal Melbourne Hospital Lottery tickets, for three lotteries to be drawn from 25 March 2020 to 1 May 2020
   5. an ASIC Record of Registration for Business name Slab Ceramics Studio dated 21 May 2025, and
   6. an Australian Cosmetic Tattoo College statement of attainment of the applicant dated 26 October 2016.
3. On 13 January 2026, the Respondent filed a supplementary statement in response to the evidence provided by the Applicant following the hearing.

1. The Applicant contends that she has maintained a close and continuing association with Australia during the Relevant Period.
2. The Applicant relies on the fact that her husband and children are Australian citizens. She also relies on her association to extended family and long term friends who live in Australia, her regular visits to Australia, her Australian bank account which was established in 2011, her home loan pre-approval showing her intention to permanently live in Australia going forward, and finally her membership of the Australian Business Council in Dubai where she maintained professional and social connections with Australians while living abroad. The Applicant also contends that the delegate's focus on her not working for an Australian company while aboard to be unfair given she was performing a homemaker role, and her husband was required to live and work overseas as comparable roles were not available in Australia.[31]

1. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the Relevant Period, as required by s 22(9)(d) of the Act. The Respondent relies on the following circumstances to support this contention:

(a) the Applicant's extremely limited physical presence in Australia does not demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia. The Respondent notes that the Applicant was absent from Australia for the Relevant Period, except for a total period of 97 days > > (b) there is no evidence that the Applicant was employed in Australia or by an Australian employer during the relevant period, and instead she claims that she was a full-time homemaker raising her two sons during this period. Further, the Applicant's husband was also not employed in Australia or by an Australian employer. It is accepted that this factor is not determinative in and of itself, however, contends that employment status is relevant to assessing whether an applicant has a close and continuing association with Australia outlined at [3.6] of CPI 11 > > (c) the Respondent accepts the Applicant's husband and sons are Australian citizens, however notes that they resided with the Applicant in Dubai during the Relevant Period (although it was accepted at the hearing that the eldest son, resided in Melbourne for all but the first 9 months of the Relevant Period) and these family relationships are not sufficient to demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia > > (d) the Applicant's relationships with her Australian friends and family are associations with Australians do not, in the Respondent's view, equate to an association with Australia > > (e) the Applicant's evidence of her previous residence in Australia, and previous intention to permanently reside in Australia does not address whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the period of four years immediately prior to her citizenship application > > (f) the Applicant's Commonwealth bank account does not demonstrate a 'close' association with Australia as it could be managed from overseas > > (g) the fact that the Applicant, her husband and both sons are now permanently residing in Australia, the Applicant obtained pre-approval for a home loan in February 2025, the Applicant is renting a house in Victoria and she and her husband have purchased two motor vehicles in Australia is not relevant to whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the period of four years immediately prior to her citizenship application > > (h) the Applicant held membership of the Australian Business Council in Dubai for at most half of the Relevant Period, and the Applicant has only provided evidence concerning two events during this period. The Respondent submits that, if it is accepted by the Tribunal that the Applicant attended these events, this is not sufficient to establish that the applicant maintained social ties with Australia during the relevant period, and that although the Applicant offered to volunteer at a March 2021 event, there is no evidence that the offer was accepted.

1. In order to satisfy the requirements of s 22(9)(d), I must be satisfied that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the Relevant Period. I have taken guidance from the factors identified at paragraph 3.6 of CPI 11 as set out above. I acknowledge that whilst those factors identified at 3.6 are directed towards an assessment of an applicant's future intentions to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, I have relied on them as a guide in assessing the Applicant's association with Australia in the four years prior to her application. I have also kept in mind that are a guide only and that each case must be assessed on its facts. Further, I note the concept of a 'close and continuing association' is a broad one, which requires me to make a 'qualitative assessment of the ultimate significance of the applicant's circumstances' through a 'multi-factorial approach': Judd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 827 (Judd) at [14]. Accordingly, the factors in CPI 11 are not to be treated in isolation or 'ticked off individually' as having been satisfied, but, rather, considered in combination: Taher and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 917 (Taher) at [47].
2. I accept that the applicant has a pre-existing connection with Australia, having short periods of residence in Australia in 1983, 1993, between 2001 and 2002, between 2011 and 2012 and most recently between 2016 and 2017. I accept in 1993 she worked in Australia in a pub. I accept during her other periods of residence she was a part of the Australian community by being involved in her son's schools, maintaining rental properties. driver's licences and a Medicare card, obtaining qualifications at the Australian Cosmetic Tattoo College as well as making and maintaining relationships with her Australian family and friends. Those relationships continued during the Relevant Period. She has also maintained a valid Australian driver's licence during the Relevant Period. I give her longstanding pre-existing connection with Australia and previous periods of residence some weight in the Applicant's favour in considering whether she had a close and continuing association with Australia during the Relevant Period. However, in circumstances where the Applicant has not lived in Australia for more than 1 year at a time, and the periods of her residence were well before the Relevant period, I give this factor limited weight.
3. The Applicant had some employment in Australia in 1993, however as she was raising her children and fulfilling her role as a full-time homemaker she was not employed in Australia or by an Australian employer during the Relevant Period. While employment status may be relevant to assessing whether an applicant has a close and continuing association with Australia outlined at [3.6] of CPI 11, that paragraph also makes it clear the factors are intended to be a guide only, and that each case must be assessed on its facts. I therefore do not consider the Applicant's lack of employment in Australia or by an Australian company during the Relevant Period to be a relevant factor given she was performing the role as a homemaker and was not otherwise employed overseas.
4. In terms of her financial connections to Australia, I accept the Applicant set up an Australian bank account with the Commonwealth Bank in 2011 but find that she only used that account when she was in Australia and although she could access the account and manage it from overseas she did have some difficultly due to not being able to access the required internet banking codes which were linked to an old Australian phone number.[32] I also accept her oral evidence that she and her husband invested in some gold and silver in the Perth Mint in around 2020. These financial investments however could be managed from overseas. Significantly, the Applicant did not own any property, vehicles or other property in Australia during the Relevant Period. I consider her financial ties to Australia during the Relevant Period to be minimal.
5. The Applicant has strong family relationships in Australia. While her Australian citizen husband and her youngest son lived overseas with her in the Relevant Period,[33] her eldest son was living in Melbourne for all but the first 9 months of the Relevant Period.[34] She also has three Australian citizen sisters living in Perth and one Australian citizen brother living in Sydney as well as their Australian citizen partners, children and grandchildren. The Applicant maintained regular contact with them during the Relevant Period, particularly with her son in Melbourne and her sisters in Perth. While she has one brother who remains in South Africa, the remainder of her family are in Australia and are Australian citizens. I also accept the Applicant has friendships in Australia, including Mr Dean Vaughan and his family. She remained in regular contact with this family during the Relevant Period. She also maintained irregular contact with a large network of other friends, which became more frequent during the Covid-19 pandemic when they started connecting via zoom.[35] I give the Applicant's family relationships and friendships some weight in the Applicant's favour in considering whether she had a close and continuing association with Australia during the Relevant Period.
6. I accept the Applicant had some limited community ties to Australia during the relevant period, including by purchasing Royal Melbourne Hospital Home Lottery tickets which contributed to the fundraising for that hospital. She was also a member of the Australian Business Council in Dubai for part of the Relevant Period. However, I find she did not hold any particular role in that organisation but simply attended a few events in Dubai and offered to volunteer at one event in Dubai. I give these community ties limited weight in the Applicant's favour.
7. As mentioned above, the Applicant made four return trips to Australia during the Relevant Period, staying for a total of 97 days. I accept that during those visits she stayed with family or friends and once stayed in a hotel where her eldest son was staying. I accept that the Applicant was unable to travel during the Covid-19 pandemic, and, after the travel restrictions lifted, the length of her visits was limited by the amount of annual leave her husband had each year. The Applicant caught up with her friends and family as much as she could on those return visits. I accept those return trips are evidence of a continued association with her Australian friends and family.
8. I accept the Applicant had an intention to reside in Australia for many years and they attempted to relocate here previously in 2001, 2011 and 2016, but on each occasion her husband was unable to find suitable work and they had to return to Dubai where he had more opportunities. The Applicant left some furniture with her friends in Victoria to store for her as she planned to return. I accept the oral evidence of the Applicant that in recent years she was unable to relocate to Australia due to her youngest son having anxiety and separation disorder and she intended to move as soon as he was ready to leave Dubai. I further accept that she and her husband rushed to relocate here in January 2025 after that son moved to Australia. I accept the Applicant and her husband obtained pre-approval for a home loan in February 2025, have bought motor vehicles and are now living in Australia and intend to remain here.[36] The Applicant's husband gave evidence that he has started his own business in Australia and is doing some consulting work.[37] There was also evidence before me that the Applicant herself was starting her own pottery business.[38] In these circumstances, I accept that the Applicant during the Relevant Period had an intention to reside in Australia and she now has returned and intends to continue to live in Australia. However, during the Relevant Period the Applicant's life was in Dubai. She was residing there with her husband and youngest son, they were renting a property, and her husband was working there as he had done for many years.[39] While the Applicant's intention to reside in Australia weighs in the Applicant's favour, the fact that she was living in Dubai during the Relevant Period weighs against finding a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.

1. Although the Applicant has pre-existing connection to Australia and close ties with Australians, she has not demonstrated a close and continuing association with Australia during the Relevant Period. I have had regard to the evidence which establishes that the Applicant's life was in Dubai during the Relevant Period. She was residing there with her husband and youngest son. Given she was not physically present in Australia for significant periods of time during the Relevant Period she had minimal financial ties to Australia and was not involved in the Australian community in any real way. While she had an intention to reside here and is now living in Australia, that does not outweigh her limited presence in Australia during the Relevant Period and her limited financial ties and community involvement. Given she was not physically present in Australia for significant periods of time during the Relevant Period, it was 'plainly difficult' for her be involved with the Australian community[40] and be connected to Australia.[41]
2. The Applicant has not demonstrated a close and continuing association with Australia during the Relevant Period. It follows that she does not satisfy s 22(9)(d) of the Act and cannot rely on the Ministerial discretion to satisfy the general residence requirements of the Act.
3. I note that the Applicant can reapply for citizenship at any time, either after she has met the general residence requirement or after a period of time where she can demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia in the four-year period before any further citizenship application.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[6] Exhibit [1788] EngR 258; 1, HB 87, 278 and 282

[10] Ibid, HB 370-373 and the Applicant's oral evidence

[12] Exhibit 1, HB 290 and Bundle of documents submitted by the Applicant on 11 December 2025

[14] Bundle of documents submitted by the Applicant on 11 December 2025

[15] Applicant's oral evidence, Bundle of documents submitted by the Applicant on 11 December 2025

[32] Exhibit 1, HB152 and oral evidence

[35] Applicant's oral evidence, Exhibit 1, HB 85

[36] Applicant's oral evidence and Exhibit 1, HB167 and 282

[37] Mr Garth Braithwaite's oral evidence

[38] Mr Garth Braithwaite's oral evidence and ASIC Record of Registration for Business name Slab Ceramics Studio dated 21 May 2025

[39] The Applicant's oral evidence, Mr Garth Braithwaite's oral evidence and Exhibit [1788] EngR 258; 1, HB 87 and 130-132

[41] Nassif and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 677 at [37]