CQW17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, an Iraqi national, applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority to refuse his application for a temporary protection visa. The Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed an appeal by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. The applicant subsequently filed an application for an extension of time to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court’s decision dismissing his second application for judicial review. The Minister opposed the application for an extension of time. The court was required to decide whether there were any circumstances warranting an extension of time beyond the 21-day period specified in r 36.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for the applicant to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court’s decision dismissing his second application for judicial review.

The court held that an extension of time to appeal should not be granted. The applicant filed his application for an extension of time more than three years after the date of the Federal Circuit Court’s decision and his explanation for the delay was inadequate. Furthermore, there was no reasonably arguable appealable error in the reasons of the primary judge. The court held that the principles governing applications for extensions of time are well established. An extension should only be granted where it is proper to do so. In this case, there was no acceptable explanation for the delay and there was no obvious strength in the applicant’s case. The merits of the proposed appeal were also relevant. An extension will not be granted where the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success. The applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success.

ORDERS:
1. The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs”.
2. The application for an extension of time to appeal, filed on 21 April 2022, be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs.