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

[2023] AATA 46

Ramoran and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 46 (25 January 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2022/6488

Re:Mazen RAMORAN

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

Decision

Tribunal:The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

Date:25 January 2023

Place:Sydney

The applicant’s application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review is refused.

.............................[SGD]...........................................

The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time – application for citizenship by conferral refused – where the application is two years out of time – whether there is any adequate explanation for the delay – whether the grant of the extension of time would prejudice the respondent – where the applicant states he did not receive the decision at the time it was made – application for extension of time is refused.

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 29

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 21

Cases

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited & Ors v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

25 January 2023

Background

1. On 12 November 2020, the applicant was notified of the decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the applicant's application for citizenship (the reviewable decision). The decision was made on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy paragraphs 21(2)(d), (e) and (f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The respondent submits that the deadline for the applicant to apply for review of the decision was 10 December 2020, being 28 days after he was notified of the decision as per s 29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act).

3. The applicant initially applied to the Tribunal for review on 10 August 2022, and lodged an extension of time application on 10 December 2022, which the respondent opposed.

4. The application for review is two years’ out of time. The issue before the Tribunal is whether or not to grant the extension of time to make the application for review as requested by the applicant.

   Submissions At hearing

5. At the hearing, the applicant said that he had not received any notification in relation to the outcome of his citizenship application, either by mail or otherwise, and that there was no information about the necessity for him to ask for an extension of time.

6. The applicant said that his circumstances were very difficult, and that he had had to postpone appointments to sit the citizenship test many times.

7. The respondent argued that the delay in the applicant seeking an extension of time was excessive, in that it was more than two years after the deadline for the applicant to apply for review.

8. The respondent said there was no proper explanation for the delay, and that the refusal decision had been sent to the applicant at both his postal address and email address on 12 November 2020.

9. The respondent drew the Tribunal’s attention to correspondence between the applicant and the respondent on 12 November 2020, which on the front page, under the applicant’s address, stated ‘Applicant status – Australian citizenship by conferral – Refused’.

10. That document advised the applicant that his citizenship application had been refused, and set out the requirement for him to apply for review within 28 days.

11. The respondent said that it was neither fair nor equitable for the applicant to be granted an extension, and that his application had been refused in accordance with the Act a, on the basis that the applicant did not meet the requirements of the Act under s 21(2A) in that he had failed on several occasions to attend (and pass) an Australian citizenship test. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant had subsequently attended such a test.

12. The respondent also argued that the Minister would be prejudiced if an extension were granted after such a long delay, and that granting the applicant an extension of time would not be in the public interest. The respondent was argued that it would be unfair to other applicants in similar circumstances who had been refused an extension of time.

13. The respondent noted that it was open to the applicant to make a fresh application for citizenship.

    DIscussion

14. The principles in relation to granting an extension of time in such circumstances are well enumerated in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited & Ors v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305.

15. In this case, the delay is more than two years, and there is no real explanation before the Tribunal as to the reason for the delay. I accept the respondent’s evidence that the delegate’s decision was sent to the applicant at his postal address on 12 November 2020. It was also forwarded to the applicant by email on the same day. It is reasonable to assume that the correspondence was received, especially as the email correspondence was sent to the same email address as the email correspondence dated 21 July 2022, which the applicant said that he received.

16. I note that the applicant made no inquiries of the Department in relation to the progress of his citizenship application until around the time of June/July 2022, nearly 18 months after his application had been refused.

17. Further, it is relevant that the applicant’s citizenship application was refused on the basis that he had failed to meet the requirements of the Act, as he had not sat for and passed a citizenship test. There is no evidence that the applicant has subsequently attended and passed such a test, so that even if an extension of time were granted to make an application to the Tribunal, it is unlikely to be successful.

18. I also accept that it is in the public interest for matters to be finalised within a reasonable timeframe.

19. I do not place any weight on the respondent’s argument that it would be unfair to others if the applicant were to be granted an extension of time, as each case clearly turns on its own facts.

20. In all of the circumstances, the appropriate course for the applicant is make another application for citizenship, and to ensure he meets the requirements of the Act.

    Decision

21. The applicant’s application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review is refused.

22.     I certify that the preceding 21 (twenty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

.........................[SGD]......................................

Associate

Dated: 25 January 2023

Date(s) of hearing:	16 January 2023
Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms E. Letcher-Boldt, Clayton Utz