Palemala Nadzan and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs. The applicant, born in Malaysia in 1971, had resided in Australia since 2000 and held various visas, most recently a Return Resident visa granted in 2010 and renewed in 2016. The dispute arose following a conviction for contravening an apprehended domestic violence order in November 2015, for which the applicant was placed on a good behaviour bond. Crucially, in his subsequent citizenship application, the applicant answered "No" to a question regarding any criminal convictions, which was inaccurate. The Tribunal was asked to determine whether to grant an extension of time for the applicant to challenge the Minister's decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was an acceptable explanation for the applicant's delay in lodging the application for review, and whether the merits of the substantial application, along with considerations of fairness and prejudice, warranted granting an extension of time. The Tribunal was guided by the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment*, which outline a checklist for extension of time applications, further refined by considerations of delay, prejudice, merits, and fairness as discussed in *Phillips v Australian Girls’ Choir* and *Hillman v Australian Postal Corporation*. The Tribunal noted that these factors are not to be applied mechanically and that an acceptable explanation for delay, while generally expected, is not an absolute precondition for exercising discretion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's explanation for the delay, which cited significant stress and a decline in his mental health during the period following notification of the refusal. This explanation was supported by a mental health nurse practitioner who detailed the applicant's treatment regime and the severity of his mental health decline, including suicidal ideation. The Tribunal acknowledged that it could not question the court's decision regarding the conviction but must accept the fact of the conviction and the sentence. Weighing all the circumstances, including the applicant's mental health and the support provided by his representative, the Tribunal found that the cumulative circumstances favoured the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the application for an extension of time.