BMG20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, a Chinese national, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant him a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2005 and applied for the protection visa in 2011. Following the delegate's refusal in January 2012, the applicant sought review by the MRT, which affirmed the delegate's decision in June 2012. An earlier application for judicial review of the MRT's decision was dismissed by Federal Magistrate Emmett in March 2013, and no appeal was lodged against that dismissal. The present application for judicial review was filed in April 2020.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file his review application, contending he was unaware of the possibility of seeking such an extension, the reviewability of failure to disclose country information, and the reviewability of the failure to disclose a certificate issued by a delegate. The substantive grounds of review raised by the applicant alleged that the MRT failed to disclose independent country information regarding restrictions on QQ video links, thereby denying him an opportunity to make submissions. He also claimed the MRT made findings without supporting evidence, considered irrelevant factors by focusing on his parents' fear rather than his own subjective fear of returning to China, and failed to disclose the existence of any certificate issued under sections 438 or 375A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). If the latter ground were established, the applicant further argued the MRT failed to provide him an opportunity to make submissions on the certificate's validity.

Blake J dismissed the application for review. The Court considered the applicant's grounds for seeking an extension of time and the substantive grounds of review. The Court found that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis to grant an extension of time for the late filing of his application, particularly given the significant delay since the original MRT decision and the prior unsuccessful judicial review. The Court also implicitly found that the substantive grounds of review lacked merit, as evidenced by the dismissal of the application.