Grayson and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

Mrs Nicola Grayson, the Applicant, sought an extension of time to lodge an appeal against a decision by a Delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Respondent, which refused her application for citizenship by conferral. The Applicant sought to lodge her appeal by 1 January 2023, having lodged the extension of time application on 5 October 2022. The Delegate's decision, made on 7 April 2020, was based on the Applicant not satisfying the general residence requirement under subsection 21(2) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant the Applicant an extension of time to lodge her appeal. This required the Tribunal to consider the principles governing extensions of time in such matters, including the applicant's reasons for the delay, whether the applicant had acted diligently, and whether granting the extension would cause prejudice to the respondent. The Tribunal also had to consider the merits of the proposed appeal, specifically whether the Applicant had reasonable prospects of success in challenging the Delegate's decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant had not provided cogent reasons for the significant delay in lodging her appeal, which was made over two years after the Delegate's decision. While acknowledging the Applicant's personal circumstances, including the death of her husband and her responsibilities as a single parent, the Tribunal found these did not sufficiently explain the protracted delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not have reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the Delegate had correctly applied the law regarding the residency requirements and the limited scope for ministerial waiver under subsection 22(9) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not demonstrated that she met the criteria for the waiver, particularly the four-year residence requirement.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time.