Su and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 3919 (9 November 2023)

In the case of Su and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 3919, dated 9 November 2023, the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal addressed the matter of Enji (Hope) Su’s application for Australian citizenship. The Tribunal, led by Dr L Bygrave, Member, rendered a decision to set aside the earlier refusal made by the Respondent’s delegate on 5 January 2023. The Tribunal directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Respondent, emphasizing that Ms Enji (Hope) Su’s parent, Ms Alexandra Jagelman, was indeed an Australian citizen at the time of her birth.

The case involved a review of the refusal of Ms Su’s application for Australian citizenship by descent under subsection 16(2)(a) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth). The decision, delivered on 9 November 2023, highlighted the key issue of whether Ms Jagelman qualified as Ms Su’s parent “at the time of the birth,” as required by the legislation.

Dr L Bygrave considered extensive evidence, including the circumstances surrounding Ms Su’s birth in China, her health challenges, and subsequent care provided by Ms Jagelman. The Tribunal analyzed relevant legislative provisions, such as CPI 21 and CPI 23, which outline the legal requirements for determining citizenship by descent and establishing parent-child relationships under the Act.

The decision underscored the importance of a broad interpretation of “at the time of the birth” and rejected a narrow, precise moment definition. Dr L Bygrave concluded that Ms Jagelman became Ms Su’s parent when she was born with substantial health issues and was expected to have significant disabilities. The Tribunal emphasized the unique circumstances surrounding Ms Su’s birth, deviating from standard policy and procedures in line with the Act’s provision for fair, reasonable, and lawful decisions based on the specific case facts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the initial refusal of Ms Su’s citizenship application and remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration, taking into account Ms Jagelman’s Australian citizenship at the time of Ms Su’s birth.

Written by Ross Ahmadzai

7 Dec, 2023

You may also be interested in…

News from the Ombudsman

The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) has made changes to the wording of the Retail Award in relation to: rosters...

Regional Migration Paper Released

​​An evaluation of regional migration settings has commenced with the release of the Australian Government’s...


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *