Akile and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migration Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned applications for extensions of time made by Ms Akile and her two children, SDVS and YVMH, for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migration Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse their applications for Australian citizenship. The refusal was based on the delegate's dissatisfaction with the applicants' identities. The applications for extension of time were heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the applicants an extension of time to lodge their applications for review. This required the Tribunal to consider the principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Duong v Australian Postal Court*, which involve assessing the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, the merits of the substantive application, and considerations of fairness. The Tribunal was also guided by the principle that it should weigh all relevant factors and be guided by what the justice of the case requires.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Ms Akile had provided a reason for the delay, namely seeking to provide birth certificates to address discrepancies in her children's dates of birth, this explanation was not entirely satisfactory, particularly given the significant delay of 50 days beyond the prescribed 28-day period. The Tribunal noted that the notification of the delegate's decision clearly outlined the review rights and the time limit for lodging an application. Although some latitude was given due to Ms Akile being self-represented and English not being her first language, and acknowledging her illiteracy, the Tribunal found that the justice of the case did not support granting the extensions. The Tribunal also noted that there was no prohibition on the applicants re-applying for citizenship by conferral.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused to grant the applications for extensions of time pursuant to s 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).