Re Kim and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant, a citizen of South Korea, had applied for Australian citizenship by conferral in July 2015. She departed Australia in August 2015 to live in Jakarta and had not returned since. The delegate refused her citizenship application in August 2016, citing her absence from Australia at the time of the decision and her failure to meet residency requirements. The applicant sought an extension of time to lodge an application for review of this refusal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time for the applicant to lodge her application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider various factors, including the length of the delay, any explanation for the delay, the applicant's awareness of her appeal rights, potential prejudice to the respondent, and the applicant's prospects of success on the substantive application.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's application for review was lodged approximately 356 days after the prescribed 28-day period, which commenced after she was deemed to have received the delegate's decision on 12 August 2016. The Tribunal noted that the prescribed time limits are not to be ignored and that a significant delay weighs heavily against granting an extension. Applying the principles from cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Brown v Federal Commissioner of Taxation*, the Tribunal weighed the factors, including the substantial delay, the lack of an adequate explanation for this delay, the weakness of the applicant's substantive application, and the need for efficient management of the Tribunal's resources.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it should exercise its discretion to grant the extension of time. The Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time, meaning the applicant could not proceed with her review of the delegate's decision to refuse her citizenship application.