Rezai and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, Mr Rezai, had his application for conferral of Australian citizenship refused on 7 August 2017 due to concerns about his identity. He sought to have this decision reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), but lodged his application for review significantly out of time. The AAT was therefore required to consider whether to grant an extension of time for Mr Rezai to lodge his application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Mr Rezai an extension of time to lodge his application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth). In determining this, the Tribunal considered several factors, including the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, whether the applicant was aware of his appeal rights, any prejudice to the respondent, the merits of the substantive application, and the availability of alternative avenues of relief. The Tribunal noted that while an explanation for the delay is relevant, it is not an essential precondition for granting an extension.

The Tribunal found that Mr Rezai's application for review was lodged more than two years after the delegate's decision, which weighed against granting an extension due to the need for finality in administrative decision-making. Mr Rezai claimed he was unaware of the refusal decision, despite the Department having sent notification via registered post to an address he had provided. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Rezai had indicated a preference against electronic communication. Despite the significant delay and the lack of a fully satisfactory explanation, the Tribunal considered the merits of the substantive application and the fact that Mr Rezai could lodge a further citizenship application, albeit with further costs.

Ultimately, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant Mr Rezai an extension of time to lodge his application for review. The Tribunal concluded that, in light of all the circumstances, including the potential costs and time involved in lodging a new citizenship application, it was reasonable to extend the time for him to seek a review of the original decision.