DPB18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the refusal of his Protection visa application. The applicant had arrived in Australia in September 2016 and lodged his visa application in December 2016. The delegate refused the application in March 2017, and the applicant sought review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision on 15 August 2017, with the decision being emailed to the applicant's nominated email address. The applicant subsequently sought an extension of time to file his application for judicial review.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to file his application for judicial review. This required the court to consider whether the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing was satisfactory and whether the proposed application for judicial review had sufficient prospects of success to warrant extending the time in the interests of justice. The applicant's claims for protection related to piracy in his hometown, alleged corruption within the Malaysian government, and subsequent harassment and assault by a group of Filipino men, with a perceived lack of police assistance.

Emmett J refused the application for an extension of time. His Honour noted that the Tribunal's decision was sent to the applicant's nominated email address on 15 August 2017. The application for judicial review was filed on 15 November 2017, some three months after the Tribunal's decision. The applicant's explanation for the delay was that he had been "busy" and had "forgotten" to file the application. His Honour found this explanation to be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, His Honour considered the merits of the proposed judicial review. The Tribunal had accepted the applicant's claims of harassment and the lack of police protection but found that the risk of personal targeting by kidnappers or extremists was remote, and that relocation within Malaysia was a reasonable course of action. His Honour concluded that the proposed grounds of review did not have sufficient prospects of success to justify extending the time for filing the application.