CCU21 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Court: Federal Court (Australia)
• Judgment Date: 15 September 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] FCA 1351
• Date: 15 September 2026

Federal Court of Australia

CCU21 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1351

ORDERS

VID 421 of 2026
BETWEEN:	CCU21 Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent

order made by:	BUTTON J
DATE OF ORDER:	15 SEPTEMBER 2026

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for an extension of time under s 477A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUTTON J:

1 The Applicant seeks an extension of time in which to bring an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister to refuse to exercise the power under s 501C(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (the Decision).

2 The Decision was made on 28 June 2023. Pursuant to s 477A(1) of the Act, the Applicant was required to bring any application for judicial review by 2 August 2023 (being 35 days after the Minister’s decision). The present proceeding, seeking an extension of time under s 477A(2)(b) of the Act, was not brought until 15 April 2026. That is a delay of 987 days, which is two years, eight months and 13 days out of time.

3 On any view, the Applicant’s delay is very long.

4 The background to the Applicant’s case is as follows (noting that a succession of different Ministers made the decisions referred to below):

(1) On 30 September 2019, the Applicant’s visa was cancelled by the Minister under s 501(3) of the Act. That cancellation arose on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO): s 501(6)(g). That adverse security assessment was issued on 17 September 2019, following an interview between ASIO and the Applicant on 6 June 2019.

(2) The Applicant challenged the initial, adverse security assessment and requested, pursuant to s 501C of the Act, that the visa cancellation be revoked.

(3) The Applicant attended a further interview with ASIO on 3 December 2019.

(4) On 8 July 2020, ASIO issued a “Qualified Security Assessment” in respect of the Applicant. ASIO identified that its concerns regarding the Applicant’s admitted people smuggling were “diminished”. ASIO’s revised assessment was that the Applicant was “unlikely to pose an ongoing serious threat to Australia’s territorial and border integrity”. It considered that the Applicant was “not directly or indirectly a risk to security”.

(5) On 20 October 2020, the Applicant was invited to comment on whether he did not pass the character test on the basis of a different provision, s 501(6)(c) of the Act. That provision refers to a person’s “past and present criminal conduct” and the person’s “past and present general conduct”.

(6) On 9 September 2021, the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on the basis that he had not satisfied the Minister that he passed the character test having regard to s 501(6)(c) (the 2021 non-revocation decision).

(7) The Applicant applied for judicial review of the 2021 non-revocation decision. He failed at first instance, but succeeded on appeal: CCU21 v Minister for Home Affairs (2023) 297 FCR 503; [2023] FCAFC 87 (CCU21 FC). As summarised by the Applicant:

(a) the people smuggling venture in which the Applicant had played a role involved assisting Sri Lankan nationals to travel from Indonesia to the French department of La Réunion in April 2019; and

(b) one of the successful arguments on appeal centred on the finding by the Minister that the Applicant had committed a crime by his involvement in a people smuggling operation and her finding that the Applicant’s involvement in people smuggling reflected poorly on his moral character, without considering the particular features of the venture and the Applicant’s role in it.

(8) On 28 June 2023, the Minister decided, again, not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Minister was not satisfied that the Applicant passed the character test, having regard to s 501(6)(c).

(9) The Applicant, represented by pro bono lawyers, filed an application seeking the issue of a writ of peremptory mandamus. That application was filed on 5 July 2023. The Full Court gave judgment on 6 June 2024 refusing the interlocutory application (CCU21 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) (2024) 303 FCR 350; [2024] FCAFC 69).

(10) The Applicant was granted a bridging visa around August 2024 (BVR).

(11) In about April 2025, the Applicant received a notice of intention to consider revisiting the protection finding in respect of the Applicant under s 197D(2) of the Act (the Notice).

(12) This proceeding was commenced on 15 April 2026.

5 If granted leave, the Applicant intends to advance four grounds of judicial review, which are set out in his draft Originating Application (ground 1 of the proposed originating application was not pressed).

6 This Court has the power to extend time if it is satisfied that it is “necessary in the interests of the administration of justice” to do so: s 477A(2)(b). I return below to the relevant authorities concerning time limits and the exercise of the power to extend time.

7 The Applicant relied on two affidavits to explain the reasons for the delay: an affidavit affirmed by the Applicant dated 15 April 2026, and an affidavit of his solicitor, Abdulaziz Mume, employed by Victoria Legal Aid (VLA), dated 7 September 2026.

8 In his affidavit, the Applicant relevantly stated:

(1) He obtained assistance from Stephen Blanks at SBA Lawyers, who assisted him in successfully challenging the 2021 non-revocation decision. The Applicant stated that he had “sought judicial review” of the 2021 non-revocation decision and was “eventually successful”.

(2) After the Decision was made, he received further assistance from SBA Lawyers. He recalled that they made an application to the Full Federal Court, but he “only half understood” what his lawyers were telling him due to language barriers.

(3) When that application failed, the Applicant says he experienced mental distress and depression. Although he again did not fully understand what SBA Lawyers were telling him, he understood that it may be possible to appeal the Full Court’s decision, but he was “so depressed I said to just leave it”. The Applicant deposed that he was frustrated after fighting to get his visa back for over five years, and “had no strength to keep fighting”. He said, “I had given up hope”.

(4) After being granted a BVR in August 2024, the Applicant understood that, while he was out of detention, the visa was a temporary one, and he could be deported at any time. After his release from detention, the Applicant contacted Mr Blanks of SBA Lawyers and was reassured because he was told that lots of people had received BVR visas and were not being deported. The Applicant also had heard — how is not specified — “about a Court case which said someone who had received a protection visa in the past could not be deported back to the country they had asked for protection from”.

(5) Due to reporting conditions on his BVR, the Applicant struggled to find any kind of permanent job and could only work casually. He said he also struggled with his mental health in the community, where he no longer had the mental health support available to him in detention.

(6) At some point after receiving the Notice on 17 April 2025, the Applicant contacted Refugee Advice and Casework Service (RACS). He spoke with RACS and learned that the Department was going to transfer people who had the same visa as he did to Nauru. The Applicant deposed that no one had told him about Nauru before that, and “I was afraid that I would be sent to Nauru and I knew I had to do something immediately”.

(7) The Applicant’s affidavit does not say when he contacted RACS, but says that “[i]n July 2025, RACS began assisting me to respond to the Notice”. In November 2025, RACS referred the Applicant to VLA. The Applicant deposed that RACS did not say anything to him about applying for judicial review or how he could do that; they told him to speak to VLA.

(8) The Applicant first spoke with VLA on 25 November 2025 and they explained he might still be able to apply for judicial review of the Decision. On 26 March 2026, VLA confirmed to the Applicant that they would be able to represent him in an application for judicial review of the Decision.

(9) The Applicant had been due to attend VLA’s offices on 27 March 2026 to meet his lawyer and sign paperwork to begin his proceeding, but he became very sick and was admitted to hospital. After being discharged, he was required to attend hospital daily for long checkups and needed to rest at home. Because of that, the Applicant says that he was unable to attend VLA’s offices until 15 April 2026.

9 The affidavit of the Applicant’s lawyer from VLA fills in the period between the Applicant’s first presentation to VLA on 21 November 2025 (being the date specified in the solicitor’s affidavit), and the filing of this proceeding on 15 April 2026. The relevant points are:

(1) The solicitor has a heavy caseload.

(2) The solicitor was assigned to contact the Applicant by phone on 21 November 2025 and had a brief phone conversation with him. On 3 December 2025, the solicitor was tasked with reviewing the Applicant’s matter and preparing an internal memorandum concerning his judicial review options.

(3) Between 3 December 2025 and 16 January 2026, the solicitor worked on finalising the memorandum in between handling his heavy caseload involving other clients and matters.

(4) Due to the complexity of the Applicant’s migration and litigation history, there was more internal work undertaken on the Applicant’s matter than is usual, and this was also “complicated” by staff availability over the Christmas and New Year period.

The power to extend time

10 By enacting s 477A(1) of the Act,...