MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION
In this case, the question that was being answered was that whether it is possible for a person who has been married to or is the de facto partner of an Australian citizen to become an Australian citizen. It was looking also at the circumstances that will lead to a person to qualify to be an Australian citizen. The case (Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Han, 2015) was presented in the Federal Court, and the court presented a quite remarkable judgment. In this case, the court adopted an interpretation of the Australian Citizenship Act that had received mixed results in judgments that were made in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
In the past, there had been differences of opinion in regards to this act. However, the decision that was made in this case resolved the issue of the split in terms of opinion. The issue at hand in relation to this case was that; whether the Minister of Immigration, under some special circumstances, was able to grant from residency the requirements that in normal cases applied when a person sought citizenship based on being a conferral. This means that the person who is seeking citizenship, is not entitled to be provided with citizenship because he or she was not born in Australia, neither of his or her parents holds an Australian citizenship, and he or she does not hold the permanent residency at the time of birth.Under section 22(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act, the following have to be met before a person can be granted residency requirements: The person needs to be present in Australia for a period of 4 years prior to the beginning of application.
During this period, the person should not be in Australia as an alien or be in the country illegally.The person should be present in Australia as a permanent resident during the 12 month period immediately before presenting his or her application.The Minister of Immigration is satisfied that the person has close and continuing association with Australia during the application period.In this act, it presents various situations whereby the residency requirements can be overlooked.
The court had to make a ruling in relation to how section 22(9) of the constitution was going to be interpreted in relation to this case. The facts of this case are presented below. Mr. Han who was the applicant for this citizenship was a Vietnamese national. He had migrated to Australia as a permanent resident together with his wife and children in 2008. In June 2013, Mrs. Han became an Australian citizen, and Mr. Han applied for his citizenship in September. In the 4 year period prior from seeking his Australian citizenship, he had only been in the country for only 458 days. In the year before he presented his application, he had only been in the country for 58 days. Looking at his …