Background
CRT22, a citizen of China, applied for a protection visa based on a claimed fear of persecution for practising Falun Gong. A ministerial delegate refused the visa on 2 November 2021 and emailed the decision that day to the address CRT22 had nominated for electronic communications. CRT22 applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 17 March 2022. The Tribunal found that the 28-day review period had expired on 29 November 2021 and that it lacked jurisdiction because the application was late.
CRT22 then sought judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. A Registrar summarily dismissed that proceeding on 16 April 2025. CRT22 applied to review the Registrar’s decision 26 days after the applicable seven-day deadline. The primary judge refused an extension of time, finding the delay inadequately explained and the underlying judicial review application without merit. CRT22 sought leave to appeal that interlocutory ruling to the Federal Court.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Cheeseman refused leave to appeal. Because the primary judge’s ruling involved a judicial discretion, CRT22 had to identify an arguable error of the kind described in House v The King. The proposed grounds—alleging unreasonable treatment of CRT22’s claims and misapplication of provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)—did not identify any wrong principle, irrelevant consideration, overlooked material consideration, factual mistake, or otherwise unreasonable result in the extension-of-time decision.
The Court also upheld the primary judge’s assessment that the underlying judicial review case lacked merit. The delegate’s decision was sent to CRT22’s nominated email address on 2 November 2021, CRT22 was taken to have been notified at the end of that day, and the Tribunal review deadline expired on 29 November 2021. The application filed on 17 March 2022 was therefore out of time, and the Tribunal had no power to extend the prescribed period.
The decision was not sufficiently doubtful to warrant appellate reconsideration, and refusing leave would not cause demonstrated substantial injustice. Because CRT22 identified no arguable basis on which the Tribunal could have exercised jurisdiction, the proposed appeal could not produce a practical outcome favorable to CRT22. The Court dismissed the leave application and ordered CRT22 to pay the Minister’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to appeal an interlocutory discretionary ruling requires an arguable appellate error; disagreement with how the primary judge exercised the discretion is insufficient.
- Notification sent to the applicant’s nominated email address triggered the statutory review period, which expired before CRT22 applied to the Tribunal.
- A proposed appeal lacked utility where the Tribunal had no power to entertain the late review application and no favorable practical outcome could result.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict operation of statutory deadlines for merits review in migration matters. Once valid electronic notification occurs, an applicant’s failure to lodge within the prescribed period may deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction, with no power to extend time.
It also illustrates the demanding standard for obtaining leave to appeal a discretionary refusal to extend a court deadline. An applicant must connect the proposed grounds to an arguable error in the decision under challenge and show that appellate intervention could have practical utility.