BRT19 v Minister for Home Affairs

In the matter of BRT19 v Minister for Home Affairs, the applicant sought an extension of time to lodge an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal, which in turn had dismissed an application for review of a decision by a delegate to refuse a protection visa. The Federal Court was required to consider the applicant’s application for an extension of time, as well as the substantive appeal itself. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had provided a sufficient basis to justify an extension of time, as well as whether the appeal had any merit.

The court found that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal, and that the proposed evidence, which was to be provided by the applicant’s mother, did not fit the description of the material that formed the basis on which the applicant had applied for an adjournment before the Tribunal. The court also found that the proposed evidence did not address the credibility concerns held by the Tribunal, and that the applicant was asking the court to revisit the findings made by the Tribunal, which would amount to an impermissible merits review. The court held that there was no basis to suggest that the video link did not provide effective participation in the hearing to the applicant, and that the applicant had been given an opportunity to address all of his written grounds orally.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in the sum of $3500. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any merit in the case, and that there was no prospect of success with the substantive appeal. The court also noted that the applicant had had ample time to get a lawyer, and that there was no justification for the delay in lodging the appeal.