Atl20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and an extension of time to lodge their application. The AAT had affirmed a decision to refuse the applicant's protection visa, finding that the applicant was not a genuine convert to the Shia faith and therefore did not face persecution or significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The applicant claimed ignorance of the judicial review process and the relevant time limits as the reason for the significant delay in filing their application.

The Court was required to determine two primary matters: whether to grant an extension of time for the filing of the initiating application, and whether the AAT's decision contained jurisdictional error. In relation to the grounds of judicial review, the Court considered whether the AAT's findings were based on personal opinion rather than evidence, whether the AAT was obliged to consult specific religious sources, and whether the AAT's adverse credibility findings were rationally based.

The Court found that the applicant's explanation for the 723-day delay in filing the application was not credible, noting that the applicant had been advised of their right to seek judicial review and the time limits by the AAT. The Court held that there was a significant public interest in the finality of administrative decision-making and the timely disposal of litigation, which weighed against granting an extension of time. Regarding the grounds of judicial review, the Court dismissed ground one for lack of particulars, stating that grounds not supported by particulars are liable for dismissal. Ground two was dismissed as the AAT has a duty to review, not to enquire, and it was incumbent on the applicant to provide relevant material. The Court rejected ground three, finding that the AAT's adverse credibility findings were based on rational reasons derived from the applicant's inability to answer basic questions about the Shia faith and a lack of a plausible explanation for their alleged conversion, consistent with the principles in *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS* (2010) 240 CLR 611.

The Court ordered that the application for an extension of time be dismissed. Consequently, the application for judicial review was also dismissed.