Can Australian citizenship be revoked for a long period of absence from Australia? I moved to work in Australia about 10 years ago, got there a permanent Australian visa as an employer-nominated skilled migrant, and became an Australian citizen by conferral about four years ago from now. A couple of weeks after making the Australian citizenship pledge and getting my Australian citizenship certificate and Australian passport I moved to Europe, and I have never been back to Australia since then. My question is in the title of this post. I am asking this question because I am getting worried that my Australian citizenship might be revoked. The source of my worries is that I vaguely remember reading an article saying something like, "Those who obtain Australian citizenship merely for convenience of travel and do not intend to permanently live in Australia can be stripped of their Australian citizenship." I read that article many years ago and am unable to find it now. I did research on the Internet, but have been unable to find a definite answer. On the one hand, I found no mentions whatsoever of people stripped of Australian citizenship just for a long period of absence from Australia, and I found no mentions of any requirements to stay in Australia in order to retain Australian citizenship. On the other hand, there seems to be a legal avenue to strip people like me of Australian citizenship: I recall that I had to explicitly confirm in my citizenship application that I intended to permanently reside in Australia, and I am afraid that moving to Europe from Australia just a couple of weeks after getting Australian citizenship might be seen as strong evidence that I lied about my intent to permanently reside in Australia. Many sources on the Internet say that Australian citizenship can be revoked in cases of false or misleading information in the citizenship application. The actual reason for moving to Europe was that I had a good job offer from there, had been struggling already for about half a year to find a good job in Australia, did not want to take a low-skilled job like a salesperson at Coles or have a long unemployment gap in my CV, and was running out of my savings. I never had plans to permanently reside in Europe, and I accepted the European offer just to avoid a long interruption of my career as a highly skilled worker, to fix my finances, and to buy some time to figure out how to develop my career further. It is very important to me to retain Australian citizenship, especially given that my career prospects in Europe do not look good and that I am unlikely to get a permanent residence permit in Europe in the foreseeable future. I have retained citizenship of my country of origin, so I am a dual citizen, but my country of origin is a poorly developed country whose cultural values I do not share, and I do not want to end up living there at all. I consider Australia my home, so to speak. So I would be very thankful for any information regarding my question stated in the title of this post.
Not normally The loss of citizenship is dealt with in Part 2 Division 3 of the Citizenship Act 2007. s32A contains a summary of the 5 ways it can happen: There are 5 ways in which you can cease to be an Australian citizen: you may renounce your Australian citizenship: see section 33; or if you did not automatically become an Australian citizen, the Minister can revoke your citizenship in circumstances involving offences or fraud: see section 34; or if you did not automatically become an Australian citizen and the Minister exercised the power under subsection 22A(1A) or 22B(1A), the Minister can revoke your citizenship in circumstances involving a failure to comply with special residence requirements: see section 34A; or you engage in various kinds of conduct inconsistent with allegiance to Australia: see sections 33AA, 35 and 35A; or if you are the child of a responsible parent who ceases to be an Australian citizen, the Minister can revoke your citizenship in some situations: see section 36. Assuming that you went through the normal process of gaining citizenship (i.e. you weren’t given special residence requirements) mere absence from the country for any length of time doesn’t end your citizenship.
It is a false statement to claim to live in one county when you actually live in a different one. It becomes perjury (a crime) when you falsely swear to that statement on your status report, and you are required to report changes in &quot;household situation&quot; within 10 days. There isn't an exception allowing you to give a false address &quot;in case it costs more to report truthfully&quot;. The only legal solutions are to report truthfully and pay more, or move again, report truthfully, and not pay more.
No international body has jurisdiction Australia is a sovereign nation which means it has sole jurisdiction over its immigration policy. So, short answer: no international body has jurisdiction. Who does have jurisdiction? As it seems that the decision made is that the points you have been assessed by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) have not met the amount required in their invitation to you. If you wish to dispute this decision the correct venues are, in order, Informal dispute resolution with DIBP - i.e. ask them for their reasoning. Formal dispute resolution with DIBP Review of the decision by the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal A case in the Federal Court starting with the Federal Circuit Court and working your way up Appeal to the Minister for Immigration The role of Australian Computer Society (ACS) and DIBP You are mistaken in thinking that these organisations do the same thing: they actually have totally different roles in the process and as far as I can see they have both discharged them appropriately. ACS is tasked with assessing your foreign qualifications and experience. They have done this and they state that your qualifications meet the requirements for a Developer Programmer. They make no statements that you will qualify for immigration, indeed their website specifically says: Applicants must have a clear understanding of their personal visa requirements as set by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) or should obtain professional assistance from a Registered Migration Agent (MARA) before applying for an ICT skill assessment. If you had received your qualifications at an Australian university and your experience was in Australia, this step would not have been necessary. In a completely separate process, you have put in an expression of interest with DIBP. DIBP have invited you to apply and would have specified the points total you needed to meet. With everything you provided, including ACS assessment of your qualifications, DIBP has assessed your application and found that you did not meet the requirements that they set for you. You are not entitled to a refund of the application fee: that's whay its called an application fee and not a success fee: you pay the fee to make the application. DIBP have done all that the law required of them and, as a government body performing a government duty, your relationship is not contractual so you have no grounds to sue for it. Where you went wrong On the face of it, your self-assessment of your points seems wrong to me based on what you have posted. For example, you have given yourself 5 points for having a post graduate Specialist Education Qualification - that is a Masters by research or a PhD in one of the nominated areas (Computer Science is one). ACS have equated your qualifications to a Bachelors degree - this doesn't cut it. You have also claimed 5 points for the Australian Study requirement. Have you actually studied for 2 years in Australia? On the other hand, assuming you have certified experience of between 3 and 5 years from ACS (I can only see 11 months in the letter but there may be more that you didn't post) you should have got 5 points for that. You may be entitled to 55 points but probably not more than that. It may not be too late to amend your application but you should hire a migration agent now to help you do this. However, if you don't qualify, you don't qualify and your money is gone. Skillselect Terms of Service The terms of service that you agreed to include: That the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is not liable for the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by me where I do not provide information that is true and correct in all respects. That the Department of Immigration and Border Protection accepts no responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained on or accessed through this website including SkillSelect and makes no representations about its suitability for any particular purpose. I should make my own judgement about these matters. That to the extent permitted by law, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is not liable for my loss, expense or damage arising from my access and use of, or reliance on, the information contained on or accessed through this website whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection or its agents. As previously mentioned, you do not have a contract with DIBP and are therefore not protected by Australian Consumer Law and have limited, if any, access to negligence law. If you can demonstrate that DIBP were grossly or recklessly negligent you might have a case for reimbursement. However, they did tell you not to rely on anything they said and that you should seek your own legal advice.
If I did not sign promotion bonus document, my career would be over. Is this duress? No. The premise is hardly true or even logical, and what you describe falls short of duress. Not every imbalance of bargain power implies duress. First, it seems that you could have declined the bonus, thereby preempting the sanction/remedy for leaving within 12 months. Second, it seems hard to prove (and unrealistic) that your career would have been over if you refused to sign the document. The employer can easily refute that allegation by pointing out that there are many others who did not sign that employer's document and yet work elsewhere as investment bankers. You would need certain, additional context to reasonably allow for a conclusion that your career altogether depends on what happens with this single entity. Third, your mention that "the bonus mitigates the horrendous weekly hours" reinforces the idea that signing the document was your preference (namely, for the purpose of obtaining some additional, non-compulsory stimulus) rather than employer-inflicted duress. The rationale and decision for acceptance of those conditions reflects that you knowingly exercised your freedom of contract. A party is not entitled to void a contract only because he belatedly changed his mind about conditions of which he was aware beforehand.
Unfortunately, there are no EU visa’s for non-family members on the basis of a romantic partnership or relationship. The EU recognizes family members to be facilitated entry and residence as follows: Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Directive: 1. ‘Union citizen’ means any person having the nationality of a Member State; 2. ‘family member’ means: (a) the spouse; (b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State; (c) the direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); (d) the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); 3. ‘host Member State’ means the Member State to which a Union citizen moves in order to exercise his/her right of free movement and residence. Some Member States, potentially Italy included, recognize domestic partnerships as equivalent to marriages. Maybe you and her are able to come to peace with this idea that for a longer stay, you two would have to make deeper commitments. Maybe that is a non-question, and can work well if that is the case in Italy. Other than that merely on this basis, there is not much room to consider. If there are other facts that may be relevant, for e.g., she may apply to a university and get a student visa; maybe the familial tie you mentioned or other familial ties or ancestry may entitle her to naturalization and citizenship, but these questions vary from state to state; if she’s from a widely recognized less democratic country where she was subjected to or has a well-funded fear of persecution as a member of a social, ethnic or “racial” group or for political opinion or faith, asylum may be another option.
That is private. Who you work for is not information that is disclosed publicly by any state actor in Germany, just like your taxes. In fact, that or who you are employed at is often regarded as personal and private information. Nigh impossible through agencies Public agencies like the Fiskus (tax), Agentur für Arbeit, and immigration are not allowed to give any information about a person to anyone but that person or another agency that has the right to that information. Yes, (generally speaking) the tax office may not even say that a person exists (or doesn't) and what their tax number is to anyone but the person in question.
I cannot find any relevant judgements from June 2007 that were published by the Irish High Court using the judgement finder. However, over 50 similar cases were issued at the High Court regarding this matter, and all but 10 were settled prior to a bundle of four cases being issued before the High Court which ultimately referred the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This bundle of four cases was Metock &amp; Ors. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IEHC 77 which ultimately became Case C-127/08 at the ECJ. It's unclear why the 15 June 2007 judgement hasn't been uploaded, or why it took until 14 March 2008 for the High Court to refer the matter to the ECJ. In conclusion, Ireland was ruled to have wrongly interpreted the relevant Directive and the Court held that non-EU family members of an EU citizen can move to an EU Member State without needing to have resided in another EU Member State prior to that. Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from the provisions of that directive. Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a non-member country entered the host Member State.
In general the act must be a crime in both countries for an extradition to proceed, but the extradition treaty between countries A and B likely has more specific provisions as well. C's involvement is generally limited to consular assistance, but there have been instances where countries have offered to incarcerate their citizens for convictions in other countries. The country of citizenship certainly does not have priority to extradite or try its citizens, and it is unlikely that the country seeking to prosecute would have much interest in another country taking over the case.