Johnson and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 3469
•17 September 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Johnson and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3469
[2018] AATA 3469
17 September 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by a New Zealand citizen for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Minister for Home Affairs refusing his application for Australian citizenship. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 1990 and was granted a Resident Return Visa in 2015. He departed Australia in January 2017 and returned shortly thereafter, being granted a Special Category visa. His subsequent application for citizenship was refused on 1 March 2018, as he did not meet the permanent residency requirement under section 22(1)(c) of the *Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).
The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the applicant an extension of time to lodge his application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). In considering this, the Tribunal had regard to judicially considered principles, including the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the respondent.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant lodged his application for review 77 days out of time, which, while not extensive, was a significant delay given the 28-day time limit. The applicant's explanation for the delay was that he had difficulty contacting the department by phone and was frequently away for work, and that he had not focused on the timeframe for review in the notification letter. The Tribunal found this explanation inadequate, noting that the applicant had disregarded advice regarding the time limit and that his work obligations were not outside those normally experienced by applicants. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the substantive application for review had no prospect of success as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Tribunal refused to grant the applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the Delegate's decision.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the applicant an extension of time to lodge his application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). In considering this, the Tribunal had regard to judicially considered principles, including the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the respondent.
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant lodged his application for review 77 days out of time, which, while not extensive, was a significant delay given the 28-day time limit. The applicant's explanation for the delay was that he had difficulty contacting the department by phone and was frequently away for work, and that he had not focused on the timeframe for review in the notification letter. The Tribunal found this explanation inadequate, noting that the applicant had disregarded advice regarding the time limit and that his work obligations were not outside those normally experienced by applicants. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the substantive application for review had no prospect of success as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Tribunal refused to grant the applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the Delegate's decision.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Immigration
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Muirden and Australian National University (Compensation) [2019] AATA 5163
Cases Citing This Decision
17
Catt and National Disability Insurance Agency
[2024] AATA 3006
VMDB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)
[2024] AATA 924
Armstrong and National Disability Insurance Agency
[2023] AATA 4843
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Brown v Commissioner of Taxation
[1999] FCA 563
Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd & Ors
[2016] FCCA 3233
Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd & Ors
[2016] FCCA 3233