Bahnam and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to appeal a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to approve an application for Australian citizenship for Miss Bahnam. The applicant, Miss Bahnam, was included in her mother's application for citizenship under subsection 21(1) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1975* (Cth). The Minister's delegate was satisfied that Miss Bahnam met the eligibility requirements under subsection 21(5) of the Act, being under 18 and a permanent resident at the time of application and decision. However, the delegate exercised discretion to refuse approval, finding that this decision would not adversely affect Miss Bahnam's immigration status, rights, or separation from her mother. The decision was heard by Dr L Bygrave, Member.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant an extension of time for Miss Bahnam to pursue her substantive application. This required the Tribunal to consider the reasonableness of the application for an extension in all the circumstances, including the merits of the substantive matter and whether the applicant had rested on her rights. The Tribunal also had to consider the availability of any preferable alternative pathways for Miss Bahnam to obtain citizenship.

The Tribunal reasoned that it must consider the merits of the substantive application when determining whether to grant an extension of time. In this instance, Miss Bahnam had not attended the Tribunal hearing or provided any evidence or submissions to support her substantive application. The Minister's representative submitted that Miss Bahnam, now aged 17, was eligible to make a fresh application for citizenship in her own right. Such an application would be assessed under different criteria, requiring an interview to demonstrate understanding of citizenship responsibilities and privileges, and a basic knowledge of English. The Tribunal found that this preferable alternative, coupled with the limited evidence before it regarding the merits of the original application, weighed against granting an extension of time.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was reasonable in the circumstances to grant the extension of time. The application for an extension of time was refused.