DRX20 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, DRX20, sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the first respondent, and the Tribunal was the second respondent. The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, had applied for a Protection visa which was refused by a delegate of the Minister. The applicant then applied to the Tribunal for review, but failed to attend a scheduled hearing and the Tribunal dismissed the application for non-appearance. The applicant subsequently applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decisions, but this application was filed over 800 days outside the statutory 35-day time limit.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time under s 477(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). To succeed, the applicant needed to satisfy the Court that it was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order. In considering this, the Court examined three factors: the length of the delay and any prejudice caused, the adequacy of the explanation for the delay, and the merits of the proposed substantive application for judicial review.

Judge Kendall reasoned that the delay of 862 days was significant and weighed against granting an extension. While there was little prejudice to the Minister, the applicant's explanation for the delay was found to be unsatisfactory. The Court noted that information regarding judicial review and the time limits was readily available to the applicant, including an information sheet attached to the Tribunal's decision. The applicant's claim of ignorance was not considered a sufficient explanation, particularly as he had been able to communicate with the Tribunal previously. Furthermore, the Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonably arguable case of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decisions. The applicant's grounds of review, relating to alleged errors in the original visa refusal decision, were not considered to have merit in the context of reviewing the Tribunal's dismissal for non-appearance.

Consequently, the application for an order extending time was dismissed.