Australia is the only place Daniel Gibuma has ever called home.
It's where he grew up diving for crayfish, and learning to read the ocean and the tides.
It's the country his ancestors occupied for thousands of years before him.
It's the land his children and grandchildren are living on now.
But Mr Gibuma fears he could soon face deportation from Australia for the second time in two years.
The thought leaves him riddled with anxiety.
"My family are all Torres Strait Islanders. That's the only thing I knew as I was growing up."
Mr Gibuma is among 10 Indigenous men freed from immigration detention since 2020, when a landmark High Court ruling found Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people could not be deported.
The ruling applies to Indigenous people who are not citizens because they were born overseas.
But the Australian government is now seeking to have the historic judgement overturned.
If successful, it will leave Mr Gibuma and other Indigenous non-citizens vulnerable to deportation.
"It's shocking to me," Mr Gibuma said.
"I feel like I've been left alone by my own country."
'My name was on the list'
Daniel Gibuma was born in Papua New Guinea, just a few kilometres from the Australian border, and moved to Boigu Island in the Torres Strait when he was six years old.
His ancestors are Torres Strait Islanders, and Mr Gibuma is a recognised native title holder.
He held a permanent residency visa for decades, but it was cancelled in 2018 when he was charged with common assault and received a prison sentence.
The Australian government wanted to deport Mr Gibuma back to Papua New Guinea under powers in the migration act which allow non-citizens to be deported if they've committed serious crimes.
Mr Gibuma was held in immigration detention for two years.
"I couldn't sleep, I had nightmares because they were picking people up in the middle of the night, putting them on the plane — and my name was on the list," he said.
Mr Gibuma feared being sent to Papua New Guinea.
But then, in February 2020, the High Court handed down its landmark decision.
'An entirely new category of people'
The judgement centred on the cases of two other Indigenous men, Daniel Love and Brendan Thoms.
Both were also born overseas and weren't citizens.
In a highly controversial interpretation of the Australian Constitution, the judges ruled that Indigenous non-citizens were not "aliens", meaning they could not be deported under the migration act.
It was considered the most significant constitutional decision in recent years.
Claire Gibbs, the lawyer who represented the men, said it was a win for Indigenous people.
But the ruling disturbed members of the Australian government.
Then attorney-general Christian Porter said it created "an entirely new category of people" who must be "treated differently from all other persons in the same circumstances".
Now, the government is asking the High Court to revisit the decision in another case relating to a man claiming to be an Indigenous non-citizen, Shayne Montgomery.
In their submissions, lawyers for the Commonwealth argue the judges' reasoning in the cases involving Mr Love and Mr Thoms was inconsistent.
They also say the ruling confers "incorrect political sovereignty" onto Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by giving them power to decide who can and cannot live in Australia.
To prove they are Indigenous, a person must be recognised by a group of traditional owners.
"It makes the question whether some people are members of the Australian body politic dependent on whether they have been recognised as members of an Aboriginal society," lawyers state.
That, according to the Commonwealth, gives Indigenous people "a constitutional capacity greater than that conferred on any state parliament".
Lawyer says government's challenge 'insulting' to Indigenous people
Ms Gibbs said the government's challenge to the ruling was insulting to Indigenous Australians.
"They're refusing to accept that they got it wrong."
Meanwhile, as non-alien non-citizens, people like Daniel Gibuma are stuck in limbo.
Without a current visa or citizenship, Mr Gibuma isn't legally able to work and he does not qualify for government services like Centrelink and Medicare.
Since his release from immigration detention, he's relied on his children for financial support.
"I need to be given the rights as a human being to get back once more into this society," he said.
"To get a job, pay tax and give something back to this country."
Another Indigenous non-citizen, Dunder Koiget, has been homeless since he was freed from immigration detention in April last year, after he was charged with drug trafficking.
Mr Koiget said couch surfing in friends' houses was shameful and stressful.
But he fears being sent back to Papua New Guinea, where he was born.
"If I get back to PNG, I will be killed because I have death threats back in PNG," he said.
Mr Koiget said he'd made mistakes in the past but was determined to turn his life around.
"I'd like to be an Australian citizen. It's a good place here," he said.
Policy reform needed, advocates say
UNSW Indigenous Law Centre deputy director Dani Larkin said swift legislative reform was needed to recognise the rights of Indigenous non-citizens to live and work in Australia.
"[That way] you can actually exist properly within this country," Dr Larkin said.
"There's a total deprivation of this group of people's access to exercising their own civil liberties."
She said legal reform would require consultation with the Indigenous community.
"The immigration framework as it stands needs to be able to recognise this previously unidentified, unrecognised group of people who are non-citizens, non-aliens," Dr Larkin said.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General said the government respected the High Court's decision in Love and Thoms and was acting in accordance with the ruling, and was committed to working closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on policy to improve socio-economic outcomes.
The Home Affairs Department is currently assessing about 22 others in immigration detention who may be Indigenous and fall within the scope of the Love and Thoms judgement.
A spokesperson said none had yet satisfied the three-part test proving their indigeneity.
"The department invests a significant amount of resources to provide high-quality facilities and amenities, a broad range of services and activities within the detention network and to ensure safety and security within the centres," the spokesperson said.
