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

This matter concerned an application for review by Ms Lual of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse her application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The primary dispute revolved around whether Ms Lual had met the mandatory requirements for citizenship, specifically concerning the citizenship test, and whether her application for review was lodged within the prescribed time limits. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine these issues.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: firstly, whether Ms Lual had satisfied the general citizenship requirement by passing the citizenship test, and secondly, whether an extension of time should be granted for her to lodge her application for review. Ms Lual had failed the citizenship test on her first attempt and subsequently missed or rescheduled multiple subsequent test appointments. The Tribunal also considered whether a prior dismissed application for review, allegedly due to non-payment of a fee, was relevant to the current application for an extension of time.

In relation to the extension of time, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, considering factors such as the length of the delay, the reasons for it, the existence of an arguable case, and potential prejudice to the respondent. The Tribunal found that Ms Lual's explanation for the five-month delay, that she "had so much going on in her life," was not sufficiently elaborated to be satisfactory. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the merits of the substantive application, noting that time extensions are less likely to be granted for weak cases, as per *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Ex Parte Mehta* and *Jackamarra v Krakouer*. Given Ms Lual's repeated failure to attend or pass the citizenship test, the Tribunal concluded that her substantive case lacked merit.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Ms Lual's application for an extension of time to lodge her review application. The Tribunal found that the delay was significant and the reasons provided were not satisfactory. Moreover, having regard to the merits of the underlying citizenship application, which Ms Lual had failed to satisfy due to her inability to pass the citizenship test, the Tribunal determined that it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for lodging the application for review.