Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
(DIVISION 2)

CHB23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 108  
File number:	MLG 1632 of 2023	
		
Judgment of:	DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI	
		
Date of judgment:	6 February 2025	
		
Catchwords:	MIGRATION LAW – application for extension of time – decision of delegate of Minister for Immigration – safe haven enterprise (XE-790) visa – where the application was filed 1 year and 11 months out of time – consideration of whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time – where applicant claims to have not been aware of the Immigration Assessment Authority decision – where numerous attempts had been made by the delegate to arrange a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa interview with the applicant to no avail – application dismissed with costs. 	
		
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 477(1) and 477(2), 473DC(1) 	
		
Cases cited:	Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2022] HCA 28
MZABP v Minister for Immigration [2015] FCA 1391 	
		
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law	
		
Number of paragraphs:	94	
		
Date of last submissions:	21 August 2024	
		
Date of hearing:	21 August 2024 	
		
Place:	Melbourne	
		
Counsel for the Applicant:	The applicant appeared in person 	
		
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Ms J Lucas 	
		
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Clayton Utz	
		
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	Submitting appearance, save as to costs	

ORDERS
	MLG 1632 of 2023	
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)	
BETWEEN:	CHB23
Applicant
	
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
Second Respondent	

order made by:	DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI	
DATE OF ORDER:	6 fEBRUARY 2025	

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The applicant’s application for an extension of time be dismissed. 
2.	The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in a sum to be fixed if not agreed. 

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MERCURI:
Introduction 
1	Before the court is an application for an extension of time to seek judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (‘the Authority’) dated 17 September 2021, which affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration (‘the Minister’) to refuse to grant the applicant a safe haven enterprise visa (XE-790) (‘protection visa’). 
2	The applicant filed the review application on 21 September 2023, 1 year and 11 months outside the time limit stipulated by s 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’). Accordingly, the applicant seeks and requires an extension of time to progress his application in this court pursuant to s 477(2) of the Act. 
Background 
3	The applicant is a citizen of Iran.  The applicant is of Persian ethnicity.  The applicant arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival on 25 March 2013.  
Application for protection visa on 21 August 2017
4	On 21 August 2017, the applicant applied for the protection visa.  That application annexed a statutory declaration of the applicant in which he set out his protection claims.  Namely, the applicant referred to his imprisonment by Iranian authorities, religious beliefs and political opposition to the Iranian government as his bases for protection. 
5	By letter dated 5 February 2021, the applicant was invited to attend an interview with an officer of the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) which was scheduled on 16 February 2021.  The invitation was sent to one of the two email addresses nominated by the applicant in his protection visa application, namely xx@yahoo.com.  
6	By letter dated 1 September 2017, the applicant was advised that his application for a SHEV was assessed as a valid application. 
7	By letter dated 5 February 2021, the Department invited the applicant to an interview.  This letter appears to have been sent to the email address given by the applicant in his application, namely xx@yahoo.com.   The applicant was sent an email on 11 February 2021 reminding the applicant of the scheduled interview which was scheduled for 16 February 2021 although it appears that this email was unable to be delivered and a ‘bounce back’ was received.   A further email was sent to the correct email later on the afternoon of 11 February 2021 to xx@yahoo.com. A further reminder was sent to the applicant by email to the same email address the following day, 12 February 2021.  
8	By letter dated 15 February 2021, the applicant was advised that the interview previously scheduled for 16 February 2021 was postponed and that he would be advised in writing of a new interview time.  This letter was also sent by email to xx@yahoo.com. 
9	Notwithstanding the postponement of the interview, on 6 March 2021, the applicant sent an email responding to the 11 February 2021 email in the following terms:
hi I have just seen this email.
Sorry but I haven’t been using my email lately and just came across this email.  
Can we please reschedule sometime soon as I have been waiting for this to come through for years.  Also I don’t have access to my other yahoo email account anymore  
My mobile number is [XXXX XXX XXX] which you can also contact me on.
Thank you
10	The applicant’s 6 March email was sent from a different email address, namely from xx@gmail.com. I note that this was the second email address on the applicant’s initial visa application which he had handwritten on his application,  but not the email he had asked to be contacted on.  
11	By letter dated 18 March 2021, the applicant was invited to attend an interview at the rescheduled date, being 1 April 2021.  That invitation was also sent to the email address nominated by the applicant in his protection visa application, namely xx@yahoo.com.  By letter dated 1 April 2021, the Department wrote to the applicant advising that some of the information sent to him under cover of the 18 March 2021 letter had been sent in error and asking that the email be deleted. The 1 April 2021 letter was again sent to the xx@yahoo.com email address.
12	On 29 March 2021, the applicant was sent a further email again reminding him of his interview scheduled for 1 April 2021.  It is not apparent from the Court Book which email address this was sent to but it is apparent that the applicant received it, because on Saturday 3 April 2021, the applicant responded from his Gmail address xx@gmail.com in the following terms:
Hi I missed this appointment again would you please call me. 
13	On 6 April 2021, a further email was sent to the applicant, this time at the email xx@gmail.com.  This email advised the applicant as follows:
Dear […]
Please be advised that your interview will be rescheduled in the very near future.
You are advised to ensure that you check your email address(es) for information in relation to your interview.
Attached is a form 929 so as you can up-date you address or email address as appropriate. I ask that you pay attention to question 9, concerning email addresses, and up-date your email address as required.
This form can also be accessed via the link below …
If your residential address has also changed, you are remained (sic) that you must advise the Department of Home Affairs. 
NOTE: If you fail to attend the next scheduled interview a, decision may be made on your application from the information you have already provided, without contacting your (sic) again. 
14	The applicant does not appear to have updated the Department with any changes to his email address, his postal address or other contact information.  By letter dated 27 July 2021, the applicant was advised of a further interview scheduled on 10 August 2021 to occur by WebEx.  The applicant was advised that a Farsi Interpreter would be present to assist him.  The 27 July 2021 letter was sent by email to the applicant’s Gmail address at xx@gmail.com.  The letter contained the following:
If you are unable to attend this interview you should contact us as soon as possible using the contact details below.  You may be required to provide evidence as to why you cannot attend the interview.  A rescheduled interview date may not be offered.
If you do not attend an interview your applicant will be decided on the information already provided to us. 
15	The 27 July 2021 letter was also sent to the applicant by registered post. The records from Australia Post state that as at 4:48pm on 10 August 2021, that correspondence was awaiting collection.
16	The applicant did not attend the interview on 10 August 2021. 
17	By letter dated 11 August 2021, the delegate advised the applicant of its decision to refuse the applicant’s application for a protection visa.  Also by letter dated 11 August 2021, the Department informed the applicant that the delegate’s decision had been referred to the Authority for review under Part 7AA of the Act.   The 11 August 2021 letter was sent to the applicant by email to his Gmail address at xx@gmail.com. 
18	 In that correspondence, the applicant was also advised: 
The IAA will contact you about your review. If any of your contact details have changed and you have not advised the Department, you will need to advise the IAA and the Department to ensure your contact details are up to date for communication purposes … 
19	Annexed to the Department’s letter to the applicant notifying him of the refusal was a decision record of the delegate’s decision dated 11 August 2021. 
20	On 16 August 2021, the Authority contacted the applicant by telephone.  The case file note regarding this call is in the following terms:
On 16 August 2021 at 12.45pm I phoned the applicant on [XXXX XXX XXX].  The applicant picked up and I said I was calling from the IAA and the purpose of the call was about his confirmation of his contact details.  I explained the Department of Home Affairs referred his case to the IAA and I will be sending an Acknowledgement letter to him.  I asked the applicant to confirm his identity with his name and DOB, both were correct … I said the Department of Home Affairs made a decision, in regards to your Protection Visa and it has now been referred to the IAA.  I asked for what is the best contact method for him.  He said email ‘[XX]@gmail.com’ [redacted] and he provided his address … [redacted].  I confirmed his number is the number I am currently calling him on ‘[XXXX XXX XXX].’  [The applicant] asked if he can received the letter by both email and post.  I said I will be sending you an Acknowledgement of Referral letter to both his email and postal address.  I advised [the applicant] to read the letter carefully and explained he has 21 days if he wishes to provide information supporting his claims.  I also explained he is able to seek legal advise and it is completely up to him.  He said he never received any decision from the Department and said he hasn’t received any contact from the Department.  I advised he should call the Department of Home Affairs for further enquiry, as the IAA are a separate organisation.  He said he as (sic) been waiting 5 years for a interview and he said he is unable to work right now and is unable to receive Centrelink payments.  I said I am sorry to hear that but it’s best to call the Department and clarify with them as I am unable to assist with these questions.  He continued to ask how can the Department make a decision without contacting him and when he called last time the Department did not have him on the system.  Again I said it is best to call the Department.  [The applicant] asked what is the best way to identify himself when calling the IAA like a reference number.  I said the best way is to provide us with his boat ID.  He said he has more questions but does not want to do my head in but I proceeded to say I am happy to answer your questions and to the best of my abilities but the questions were in regards to the Department.  He continued to say he will contact the Department after this call.  He thanked me for my assistance and asked when he will be receiving the Acknowledgement of Referral letter.  I said I will send it to him in the next hour or so.  He thanked me again and ended the call.  Call 18 mins. 
21	The Acknowledgement of Referral letter was sent to the applicant at the email he provided to the case worker and reflected in the case note extracted in full above at 3:42pm on 16 August 2021.  The covering email contained the following:
Please read the attached correspondence carefully.  Please see the attached Acknowledgement of Referral letter sent to you by email.  The IAA will contact you by email unless advised otherwise.  A copy of the letter has also been sent to you by post.
22	Once again, in this correspondence, the applicant was advised of the need to keep the Authority informed of any changes to his contact details including his email address, his residential address, mailing address or telephone number.  
23	No further correspondence was received by the Authority from the applicant.  
Refusal decision by the Authority on 17 September 2021
24	By letter dated 17 September 2021, the applicant was advised that the Authority had affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa.  That notification was sent by email to the applicant’s Gmail account at xx@gmail.com. A copy was also mailed to the applicant at the address provided by the applicant in his telephone discussion with the case worker as noted above.  
25	The annexure to the notification of the Authority’s decision was a document headed ‘Factsheet – The IAA’s decision’ which included information that, should the applicant apply for a review of the Authority’s decision, he must do so within 35 days. 
26	Annexed to the Authority’s letter to the applicant notifying him of the decision to affirm the delegate’s decision was a decision record of the Authority dated 17 September 2021. 
Authority’s decision
27	In its reasons for decision, the Authority set out in detail the various attempts made by the Department to provide the applicant with an opportunity to attend a hearing at which he would have been given the opportunity to provide evidence and make submissions in support of his claims for protection.
28	In addition to the information summarised above about these attempts, the Authority records that:
6.	… On 5 August 2021 the delegate telephoned the applicant.  A woman answered the call and when the delegate asked for the applicant … the woman said he had changed numbers.  The delegate asked if she was a friend of the applicant, to which she said ‘no’. … On 10 August 2021 the applicant did not join the video conference interview scheduled to start at 2.00 pm.  At 2.14pm the delegate telephoned the applicant on the mobile number on record.  The call was unanswered and went to a message bank that indicated it belong (sic)  to a name the same as the applicant’s preferred name.  The delegate left a message for the applicant to call as soon as possible and to check his emails.  There was no response from the applicant and the delegate cancelled the interview at 2.35pm.  … 
29	Relevantly, the Authority then noted that after the matter was referred to the Authority, the applicant was contacted on the phone number recorded in the referred material to confirm his contact details and on this occasion, the applicant answered the phone.  This is the telephone call detailed at paragraph 20 above.
30	At paragraph [8] of its reasons, the Authority said it was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the interviews scheduled with the applicant on 1 April 2021 and 10 August 2021 and that he failed to attend on both occasions.   The Authority also rejected the applicant’s claims that the Department had not contacted him about his application. 
31	At paragraph [9], the Authority noted that it retains a discretion to seek new information in conducting its review, but concluded that in this case, it had decided not to exercise that discretion.  The Authority said that it was not satisfied that the applicant was not aware of the need to provide more information to support his claims.  The Authority had regard to the fact that the applicant was representing himself and that his first language was Farsi not English.  However, having regard to the information provided in his Entry Interview about his understanding of English, the emails he had sent to the Department and the fact that he had been able to communicate with the officer from the Authority, the Authority formed the view that the applicant had been provided with an opportunity to provide any further information that he might want the Authority to consider, and that it was appropriate to proceed to deal with the review without seeking any new information.
32	At paragraph [10] the Authority summarised the applicant’s claims for protection.  At paragraph [11], the Authority accepted that the applicant was a national of Iran and that Iran would be the receiving country if the applicant’s application were unsuccessful.
33	At paragraphs [12] to [22], the Authority summarised the information provided by the applicant in his application and statutory declaration.  
34	At paragraph [23], the Authority noted that in considering the applicant’s evidence, the Authority considered ‘the difficulties often faced by applicants for protection … including minor errors and discrepancies that could be attributed to factors such as recall problems, misunderstandings in interpreted material, cultural communication issues, or a lack of cohesive narration due to trauma.’  Notwithstanding this, the decision maker noted that they had serious concerns about the applicant’s credibility.  
35	The decision maker then went on to explore those concerns in great detail at paragraphs [24] to [26] and then concluded at [27] that given these concerns, the decision maker did not consider the applicant to ‘be a credible or reliable witness and I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a truthful account of his life in Iran or the adverse attention he received from the Iranian authorities.’
36	At paragraph [28], the Authority considered the applicant’s claim to have converted to Christianity in Australia.  Whilst the Authority was prepared to accept that the applicant had ceased to be a practising Muslim and that he has attended four Christian churches whilst in Australia, it did not accept that the applicant had a genuine interest in Christianity or as a convert. 
37	At paragraphs [29] to [30] the Authority considered and accepted that if the applicant were to return to Iran, he may be considered a returned asylum seeker.
38	At paragraphs [31] to [41] the Authority considered the whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of the definition of a refugee in section 5H(1) and the requirements of section  36(2)(a) of the Act.  In doing so, the Authority considered relevant country information.  The Authority accepted that if returned to Iran, the applicant might be questioned about his return on temporary travel documents but was not satisfied that he would be harmed as a result or that any such treatment would amount to serious harm.  
39	The Authority concluded that: 
Considering the applicant’s circumstances and profile as a whole, in the context of the country conditions in Iran I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.  The applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J. 
40	The Authority therefore found that the applicant did satisfy the criteria in section 36(2)(a).  
41	The Authority then considered whether Australia’s complementary protection obligations were engaged.  At paragraph [48], after considering the risks to the applicant of being questioned at the airport on his return, which it did not consider to amount to a real risk of significant harm, the Authority said:
I have found that the applicant does not otherwise face a real chance of harm in relation to his claims or profile.  As ‘real risk’ and ‘real chance’ involve the application of the same standard, he also does not face a real risk of any harm in Iran.  I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm in Iran (footnotes omitted).  
42	The Authority therefore concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 36(2)(aa). Therefore, the Authority affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse the visa.
Extension of time application
43	The applicant filed his application in this court seeking judicial review of the delegate’s refusal decision on 21 September 2023. 
44	Section 477(1) of the Act relevantly provides that any application for judicial review of the Authority’s decision must be filed within 35 days.  In these circumstances, an application would have been brought in time if it was made by 22 October 2021.  Therefore, the applicant’s application was made approximately 1 year and 11 months out of time. 
45	Section 477(2) of the Act allows this court to grant an extension of time within which a review application can be made if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to do so.  The power to extend the time for filing a review application, such as that permitted by section 477(2), was the subject of judicial consideration by the High Court in Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs & Anor [2022] HCA 28 (‘Katoa’).  In Katoa, the court considered the power to extend time under s 477A of the Act, however, the analysis in that case applies equally to section 477.
46	It is well-settled that in determining whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time under section 477 of the Act, there are a range of factors to which the court can have regard.  Whilst there is no exhaustive list of factors, commonly the following matters are regarded as relevant to the exercise of the court’s discretion:
(a)	the length of the delay;
(b)	any explanation for the delay;
(c)	prejudice to the Minister if the extension of time were granted; and
(d)	the merits of the substantive application.
47	The High Court in Katoa did not take issue with these settled principles, although it did consider the jurisprudence which had developed regarding how the court is to assess the merits of the substantive application, in particular, whether the court can assess the ‘merits’ on anything other than an ‘impressionistic’ basis.
48	Relevantly, the plurality (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ) stated at paragraph [17]: 
17.	… it may be accepted that, in determining what is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice for the purposes of s 477A(2) (or s 477(2)), it will often be appropriate to assess the merits of the proposed grounds of review at a “reasonably impressionistic level”. That is because the interests of justice are likely to be advanced by granting an extension of time to an application with some merit, depending, of course, on other relevant factors. In this regard, it may be relevant, as Mortimer J observed, that an extension of time will confer upon the applicant not only the right to a determination of their substantive application on the merits but also a right of appeal from that judgment, if adverse to the applicant.
49	The plurality then went on further at paragraph [18]:
18.	However … there will be circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Court to engage in more than an impressionistic assessment of the merits. For example, if the delay is lengthy and unexplained, the applicant may be required to show that their case is strong or even “exceptional”. In such a case, a proper exercise of the power conferred by s 477A(2) will not require the judge to confine their consideration of the merits to an assessment of what is “reasonably arguable” or some similar standard. In other cases, the proposed ground of review may be hopeless but it may be necessary to examine the proposed application in some detail to reach that conclusion. The broad power in s 477A(2) does not prevent a judge from undertaking such an examination and from relying upon that determination to refuse an extension of time.
50	Similar comments were also made by the balance of the court in Katoa (Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ) at paragraph [62]:
62.	… Where an application for an order under s 477A(2) has been made to the Federal Court “specifying why the applicant considers that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order”, the question for the Federal Court - the statutory question - is whether the Court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension. There are no mandatory considerations. A number of factors may be relevant and it is for the judge hearing the application to decide what is both necessary and sufficient to resolve the issues raised in the application. In assessing whether it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension under s 477A(2), the merits of the underlying application may be, and often are, considered and given considerable weight. In some, maybe most, extension of time applications, the judge can and does consider the merits of the underlying application at what might be described as a threshold level - inquiring whether the proposed grounds of review enjoy reasonable prospects of success. But in order to resolve the facts and issues raised in an application, the judge may sometimes consider that it is necessary to have regard to the merits of the underlying application in greater detail.
63.	… the Federal Court does not ordinarily fall into jurisdictional error by concluding that it is not necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant an extension of time after having undertaken something more than a preliminary or threshold assessment of whether the proposed grounds of review enjoy reasonable prospects of success.
Extension of time – Consideration
51	I note that the applicant appeared on his own behalf before the court.  
52	The only documents filed in these proceedings by the applicant are his initial application and his affidavit affirmed on 20 September 2023.
53	In the applicant’s affidavit, the applicant relevantly said:
4.	I have never been interviewed or had the opportunity to answer questions about the claims raised in my protection visa.
…
5.	I await further directions from the Court in relation to the filing of any documents. 
54	On 26 October 2023, orders were made by Registrar Downing which among other things provided as follows:
5.	The applicant file and serve the following at least 28 days before the hearing:
	5.1	written submissions;
5.2	any amended application with proper particulars of the grounds of the application; and
5.3	any additional evidence on which the applicant seeks to rely.
55	Notwithstanding these orders, the applicant filed no further material in this matter.
56	In the hearing before me, it was explained that in considering whether to grant an extension of time, the court had to consider various factors including those set out at paragraph 46 above.  When invited to make submissions addressing these matters, the applicant said:
•	he was not aware that there was a tribunal hearing that he could attend; and
•	no one advised him of the outcome of the Tribunal. 
57	I understand that when the applicant says ‘Tribunal’ he is in fact referring to the Authority.  The applicant then went on to say:
… I didn’t even know I’m not holding a visa.  See, they put me in prison for detention, and then, over there, they told me “you don’t have a visa”.
…
… I have to tell you, about a year after that date that you mentioned, they contacted me and said, “You were refused.”
…
Because I changed my phone and my number.  Apparently maybe they tried to contact me.  They couldn’t reach me, so they emailed me.  Well, on my new phone, once I decided to use my previous email.  When I opened that email, I came to find out their email, so that contact was through email.
…
Then I contacted them.  I said “I just came to find out that you sent me an email and telling me that I’ve been refused.  So what are my options from now on?”  They said, “it’s too late.  You had only 28 days to take this matter further if you wanted.  And now you have a lawyer.”  I didn’t have a lawyer, and I had no idea what I was supposed to do.  So and they said – when I asked for my option, they said “Wait, somebody will contact and advise you” – “from Immigration to advise you”.
… I can easily say that I had no knowledge about it.  I didn’t receive the correspondence.  I was desperately waiting for that tribunal – to participate in that tribunal for six/seven years.  But out of blue, I ended up just here because I didn’t receive the correspondence.  Like I wasn’t aware.  No knowledge.  
58	When asked to address the grounds of review raised in his application, the applicant said:
… I expected to appear at court and talk to the judges, magistrates, members and explain my situation, but I didn’t get that opportunity, so that’s why I thought it’s injustice.
…
… because when I opened that email and I went through, I came to find out the reason for rejection is mainly because of not appearing at my hearing.  That’s why I thought it’s injustice.
…
Because I didn’t appear due to not having any knowledge of the tribunal hearing.  And they couldn’t get a chance to hear me out about the reason for seeking asylum, that I was experiencing persecution and I had to flee the country and that is why.
59	The applicant in essence confirmed that he was seeking to challenge the Authority’s decision on the grounds that he had not been given a hearing before the delegate or the Authority at which he could speak to his claims and provide evidence in support of his claims.
60	After hearing from the Minister’s representative, the applicant sought to clarify by reference to material in the Court Book the amount of time that he was given to provide a response.  In this context, the applicant said:
… And I receive a phone call from them.  And when I asked for my option, they said – when I contacted them and I asked for my option, they said “Wait.  Someone will be in touch with you”.  And then since then, I never heard anything from them.
61	I stood the matter down to allow the applicant, with the assistance of the interpreter to locate the relevant document that he was referring to in the Court Book.
62	After a short break, the applicant located the relevant document, being the file note of the discussion between the applicant and the Authority’s officer contained at page 160 of the Court Book.  The applicant said:
… as you can read, they told me ‘We will be in touch with you because your matter has been referred to us.’ That’s why I’ve been waiting since then.  Your Honour, I have to tell you also I’m sorry, and I feel quite bad and remorseful that I was negligent not checking my email.  I acknowledge on that one.  But my case worker advised me Immigration and IAA always will be in touch and contact with you.  In my language, maybe because I am not good with – linguistically, I’m not good, I thought … they mean phone calls and they always used to do that with a telephone interpreter.  And then I ended up losing my phone and number, so I ended up here.
63	The applicant confirmed that as he did not receive any further telephone contact, he did not do anything further and it was only when he found that he no longer had a valid visa that he was prompted to file this application.
Length and explanation for delay 
64	The applicant’s application was filed 1 year and 11 months outside of the statutory timeframe.  That is not an insignificant delay.  In explaining the delay, in essence, the applicant says that he was not aware of the Authority’s decision until he advised that he no longer had a valid visa and that this then prompted him to file this application.  The applicant concedes that he spoke to someone from the Authority on 16 August 2021 but he understood from that conversation that the Authority would call him again prior to making any decision.
65	The applicant’s explanation for the delay is not credible.  Even allowing for the fact that the applicant did not speak English fluently, it is apparent from the file note contained at page 160 of the Court Book, that the applicant was able to make himself understood over the course of a telephone discussion which lasted 18 minutes.  The file note also records that the Authority’s officer confirmed the applicant’s contact details, namely his email and his home address and told him that she would be sending him an email attaching a letter setting out how the Authority would conduct its review.  In particular, the file note records that the applicant asked when this letter would be sent, and that the applicant asked that it be sent both by email and by post, which was done.  This is not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that he did not understand that he would be communicated with by letter and email.  
Prejudice to the Minister 
66	The Minister concedes that there is no prejudice to him if an extension of time were to be granted, notwithstanding the public interest in determining matters in a timely manner.
Merits of grounds in substantive application 
67	The applicant’s substantive application contains two grounds of review.  I note that ground 3 refers to the applicant’s application for assistance from Victoria Legal Aid and seems to merely provide an update on the status of that application at that point in time. I will otherwise consider the remaining grounds in turn. 
68	The applicant made oral submissions which supplemented the grounds contained in the application for review.  In essence, as I understood those submissions, the applicant contends that he is entitled to review of the Authority’s decision as he was not given an opportunity to appear before the delegate or the Authority to provide evidence in relation to his claims for protection. 
69	The Minister submits that the substantive application is unmeritorious such that it would not be in the interests of justice to extend time. For the following reasons, I agree.
70	As noted, in considering the grounds of review, the court is not confined to an impressionistic assessment of the applicant’s substantive application, rather the court is able to consider a broader assessment of the merits of the application as required by the circumstances of the case and in the interests of the administration of justice. 
71	For the following reasons, I find that the grounds of review do not give rise to any jurisdictional error and as such it would not be in the interests of the administration of justice to grant an extension of time as sought.
Ground 1 
72	By ground 1, the applicant claims that: 
1.	The Second Respondent denied the Applicant procedural fairness in its failure to alert the applicant to new issues arising before the Authority of which the applicant was not previously aware, and in the alternate the Second Respondent denied procedural fairness because the Authority’s reasoning departed from the Department’s reasoning, resulting in a practical injustice to the Applicant. 
73	As I understand ground 1 to be put, the applicant alleges that he was denied procedural fairness by virtue of the Authority’s failure to put the applicant on notice of any new issues arising on the review before the Authority. 
74	The applicant has not identified what new issues arose before the Authority which were not before the delegate.  Indeed, a fair reading of the Authority’s reasons when compared to those of the delegate indicates that the Authority, like the delegate, did not accept the applicant’s evidence about his involvement in the protests and importantly his claimed profile which would put him at risk if he were to return to Iran.
75	The delegate did not accept that the applicant was involved in any political protests, that he was imprisoned in Iran as a result, that he was targeted during the 2009 electoral protests and again imprisoned, that he was required to report to police or that he departed Iran illegally on a fraudulent passport. Nor did the delegate accept that the applicant had converted to Christianity.  
76	The Authority equally had concerns about the applicant’s credibility and after identifying some of the difficulties in the applicant’s claims, and concluded at paragraph [27] that it did not find the applicant to be a credible or reliable witness and therefore did not accept the applicant’s narrative of his time in Iran and adverse attention that he says he attracted from the Iranian authorities. At paragraph [27], the Authority stated that it was not satisfied that the applicant was involved in a protest whilst at university, that he was detained and imprisoned as a result.  Nor did the Authority accept that the applicant went on to have an adverse profile in Iran or since he left Iran.  The Authority did not accept that the applicant left Iran illegally.  
77	In relation to the applicant’s claims arising from his claimed conversion to Christianity, the Authority was prepared to accept that the applicant had abandoned his Muslim faith and attended four churches in Australia but, like the delegate, did not accept that he had any genuine interest in Christianity or conversion.
78	As presently drafted therefore, ground 1 has no prospects of success in that there is no difference between the delegate’s reasons and those of the Authority.   
79	To the extent that the applicant claims that the Authority ought to have exercised its discretion to obtain further information from him or to conduct an interview and that its failure to do so amounts to a jurisdictional error, that too does not have merit either on an impressionistic or other basis.  
80	It is well settled that where an administrative decision maker has a discretion, that discretion must be exercised within the bounds of legal reasonableness.  In this case, the applicant asserts that he had no contact with the delegate before a decision was made and that whilst he acknowledges that he had a discussion with an officer of the Authority on 16 August 2021, he understood that he would be contacted again by telephone before any decision was made. 
81	It was reasonably open to the Authority, having regard to the history of this matter, to conclude as it did, that the applicant had been afforded numerous opportunities to provide further information to the delegate which he did not do.  It was open to the Authority to have regard to the fact that the applicant in fact did receive some of the communications from the Department about the proposed interviews, and that he contacted the Department by email, seeking a further opportunity to attend an interview.  That opportunity was again afforded to the applicant to attend. 
82	It was also open to the Authority, having regard to the file note of the discussion between the applicant and the officer of the Authority on 16 August 2021 to form the view that the applicant was put on notice that a letter would be sent to him, by email and post, as requested, and that he should review that letter and respond accordingly.  It is also apparent from the file note of this discussion that the applicant confirmed his email address, his home address and his mobile phone number.  
83	In these circumstances, it was within the bounds of legal reasonableness to determine not to invite the applicant for an interview, or to seek further information from the applicant.  This is particularly so in the context of Part 7AA which requires the Authority to conduct its review on the papers unless it forms the view that it ought to obtain new information or that it ought to invite the applicant for an interview. 
84	It was open on the material before it for the Authority to exercise its discretion in this manner.  As such, the Authority did not exercise its discretion unreasonably.  Ground 1 therefore lacks merit.
Ground 2 
85	By ground 2, the applicant alleges that: 
2.	The Second Respondent constructively failed to review the decision of the delegate, and failed to conduct a review as required under section 473CC(1) of the Act, by failing to inform the applicant of issues arising on review, and failing to consider its discretion under section 473DC to get new information from the applicant. 
86	As I understand it, ground 2 alleges that the Authority breached section 473DC(1) of the Act as it was by failing to inform the applicant of new issues arising on the review, and failing to consider exercising its discretion to obtain new information. 
87	Section 473DC(1) of the Act relevantly provided: 
1.	The Immigration Assessment Authority may invite a person, orally or in writing, to give new information: 
(a) 	in writing; or 
(b)	at an interview. 
88	For reasons similar to those set out in relation to ground 1, this ground also lacks merit.  Whilst it is well settled that the Authority, when exercising a discretion must do so within the bounds of legal reasonableness, for reasons discussed earlier, it was reasonably open to the Authority not to invite the applicant, or indeed any other person to provide additional information either orally or in writing.  
Conclusion 
89	For each of these reasons, I find that the grounds of review raised by the applicant do not identify any jurisdictional error by the Authority, nor is any such error apparent on the face of the Authority’s decision record. 
90	The lack of merit in the grounds of review, together with the delay in filing the application for judicial review lead me to conclude that it is not in the interests of justice for an extension of time to be granted in this instance.
91	I therefore dismiss the applicant’s application for an extension of time.  
92	The first respondent seeks costs.  In circumstances where the first respondent has been successful in resisting the extension of time application it is appropriate that a costs order be made in its favour. 
93	I therefore order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in a sum to be fixed if not agreed.  
94	For each of these reasons, I make the orders set out at the commencement of these written reasons.

I certify that the preceding ninety-four (94) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Deputy Chief Judge Mercuri.	

Associate:	
Dated:	6 February 2025