Dela Rosa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Dela Rosa for an extension of time to lodge an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr Dela Rosa, a citizen of the Philippines, had arrived in Australia in December 2013 and applied for Australian citizenship in October 2016. His application was refused in September 2017 on the basis that he did not meet the residence requirements under the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). Mr Dela Rosa sought an extension of time to appeal this refusal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time for Mr Dela Rosa to lodge his application for review. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider established legal principles, including the length of the delay, any explanation for the delay, the applicant's awareness of appeal rights, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the respondent. The Tribunal noted that while the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) did not explicitly list these factors, they had been judicially considered in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and subsequent authorities.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Dela Rosa received the refusal notice on 11 September 2017 and was therefore required to lodge his application for review by 9 October 2017. His application for an extension of time was filed 92 days late. The Tribunal found that Mr Dela Rosa's explanation for the delay – that he waited until 30 December 2017 to complete the residence requirement, believing this would assist his substantive application – was not adequate. This was a conscious decision based on a misapprehension of how the review process operated. Weighing this against the significant delay, the applicant's awareness of his appeal rights, the limited prospects of success of the substantive application, and the availability of alternative avenues (such as a fresh application), the Tribunal concluded that it should not exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr Dela Rosa's application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the delegate's decision.