GDHF and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to seek review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia in 2010 as a refugee, applied for citizenship by conferral in 2015. The delegate of the Minister determined in August 2020 that they were prohibited from approving the citizenship application due to an inability to satisfactorily establish the applicant's identity, citing a lack of required documentation and inconsistencies in provided information. The applicant sought an extension of time to lodge an application for review of this decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the applicant an extension of time to lodge her application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider the applicant's explanation for the extensive delay of almost two years in lodging the review application, her prospects of success in the substantive matter, and whether granting an extension would cause prejudice to the respondent or the public.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd & Ors. v Minister of Home Affairs and Environment* (1984), which guide the exercise of discretion in granting extensions of time. These principles require an applicant to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and demonstrate that it is fair and equitable to extend the time, while acknowledging that the prescribed period for lodging an application is not to be ignored. The Tribunal found that the applicant had a valid explanation for her significant delay, including COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, language barriers, lack of understanding of bureaucratic processes, limited educational opportunities, family responsibilities, and an inability to seek assistance. The Tribunal also considered that the applicant had reasonable prospects of success, as she indicated an ability to provide additional evidence that could resolve the identity concerns. Taking into account the lengthy period the original citizenship application had taken to be reviewed, the Tribunal concluded that neither the respondent nor the public would be prejudiced by granting the extension.