CZS20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, CZS20, a citizen of Malaysia, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to dismiss his application for a Protection visa. The Tribunal had dismissed the application under s 426A(1A)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing. The applicant subsequently filed his application for judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia significantly outside the prescribed time limit, requiring him to obtain an extension of time under s 477(2) of the Act.

The Court was required to determine whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to file his substantive application for judicial review. In considering this application, the Court assessed three key factors: the length of the delay and any prejudice caused, the adequacy of the applicant's explanation for the delay, and the merits of the proposed substantive application for judicial review. The applicant's explanations for the substantial 680-day delay included financial difficulties in paying filing fees and legal costs, ignorance of the process, and personal issues such as losing his phone.

Kendall J found that the delay was substantial and that the applicant's explanations were unsatisfactory, noting that ignorance of the law or procedure is not a valid excuse and that the applicant had not demonstrated proactive steps to address his situation. While the Minister did not claim significant prejudice, this factor alone was insufficient to outweigh the substantial delay and lack of adequate explanation. Crucially, the Court found that the substantive application for judicial review lacked merit. The applicant's grounds for review, including claims of the Tribunal failing to consider vital aspects of his case and being deprived of procedural fairness, were not arguable given that the Tribunal was empowered to dismiss the application due to his non-attendance, and the applicant had been properly notified of the hearing.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the applicant's application for an order pursuant to s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Court concluded that the substantial delay, the unsatisfactory explanation for that delay, and the lack of merit in the proposed substantive application meant that granting an extension of time would not be in the interests of the administration of justice.