BUL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

MOSHINSKY J: 1 The applicants seek an extension of time of six days in which to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. 2 The first applicant is a national of the Philippines. The second applicant is his de facto partner and the third applicant is their child. At the outset of the hearing, I made orders by consent that the first applicant be appointed as the litigation representative of the third applicant, who is a minor. 3 The first applicant originally applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa (a protection visa) on 1 November 2010, with the second and third applicants also applying for protection visas as members of his family unit. This application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (the Minister). That decision was affirmed on 7 June 2011 by the Refugee Review Tribunal. 4 Subsequently, following the decision in SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2013) 212 FCR 235, the applicants again applied for protection visas, on the basis of the 'complementary protection' criteria in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). That application was also refused by a delegate of the Minister. The applicants sought review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). On 3 August 2015, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas. 5 On 7 September 2015, the applicants commenced a proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. The applicants were represented by a solicitor in the Federal Circuit Court proceeding. 6 On 20 July 2017, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the proceeding. 7 On 16 August 2017, the applicants sought to file a notice of appeal in this Court, but were informed that they were out of time (the applicable time period being 21 days). The applicants then filed an application for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal. It is common ground that this application was filed six days after the period of time prescribed for the filing of a notice of appeal had elapsed. 8 In support of the application for an extension of time, the applicants rely on an affidavit of the first applicant dated 16 August 2017. In that affidavit, the first applicant stated that he had understood that the period of time in which to appeal was 35 days and that his bridging visa would run out in 28 days. He stated that it was only when he went to file his documents in the Registry that he was told that he had 21 days in which to appeal. This evidence is unchallenged. 9 The applicants have provided a draft notice of appeal, which was annexed to the affidavit of the first applicant. The grounds of appeal cover substantially the same matters as the ground that was before the Federal Circuit Court judge. 10 In the circumstances, and taking into account, in particular, the short period of delay and the explanation that has been provided for the delay, I consider it appropriate to grant the extension of time sought by the applicants. I note that it is not suggested that there is any relevant prejudice to the Minister. Given the short period of delay, and the explanation provided, I do not consider it necessary to examine the grounds of appeal in detail. Although they have been rejected by the Federal Circuit Court judge, they do not appear on their face to be unarguable. 11 To protect the confidentiality of the applicants, whose names were discussed during the course of the hearing, I will make orders that the transcript be marked as confidential on the Court file and not be made available for public inspection in the Registry. I will also make procedural orders to facilitate the filing of an appeal book and submissions ahead of the hearing of the appeal. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moshinsky.