BAQ20 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FedCFamC2G 472

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 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. On 10 March 2020, the applicant filed an application for judicial review, pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 12 February 2020. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant the applicant a protection (subclass 866) visa under s 65 of the Act.
2. For the reasons that follow, the application to this Court is dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules).

1. In 2014, the applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, arrived in Australia as the holder of a student visa.
2. On 27 April 2016, the applicant lodged an application for a protection (subclass 866) visa, claiming to fear a real risk of persecution from the Chinese government if returned to China.
3. On 30 November 2016, the applicant was invited to attend a protection visa interview with a delegate of the first respondent on 9 December 2016, but failed to attend.
4. On 9 December 2016, a delegate of the first respondent made a decision refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa.
5. On 1 January 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
6. On 21 January 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing on 12 February 2020, to give evidence and present arguments.
7. On 12 February 2020, the applicant failed to attend the hearing before the Tribunal. Later that day the Tribunal made a decision affirming the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Judicial review application and steps up to hearing on 24 March 2026

1. On 10 March 2020, the applicant filed in this Court an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision (Application). The Application contained the following two grounds (as written):
   1. The Tribunal commits a jurisdictional error since it does not comply with s 424A of the Act, which they concern, are sub (1) and (3)(b) which provide:

(1) subject to subsection (3), the Tribunal must:

(a) give to the applicant, in the way that the Tribunal considers appropriate in the circumstances, particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; and

(b) ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why is relevant to the review, and

(c) invite the applicant to comment on it.

1. The Tribunal did not inform the date and time for a hearing and made its decision without the applicant's appearance to give the evidence in the Tribunal.

1. The Application recorded the applicant's email address (Applicant's Email Address) and phone number (Applicant's Phone Number).
2. On 21 May 2020, a registrar of the Court made procedural orders, including that the applicant file and serve by 13 August 2020 any amended application and a written submission. The applicant did not comply with this procedural order.
3. Following a period of inactivity, this matter was docketed to me. Shortly afterwards, on 18 February 2026 my Chambers sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address:

(a) stating that the matter was listed for hearing at 2:15 pm on 24 March 2026 at the William Street registry of the Court; and

(b) attaching procedural orders made by the Court, including that the applicant file and serve any amended application and a written submission by 10 March 2026.

1. On 16 March 2026, my Chambers sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address, reminding the parties of the date, time and place of the hearing.
2. The applicant did not file or serve any further materials prior to the hearing on 24 March 2026.

1. The hearing on 24 March 2026 commenced at 2:15 pm and concluded shortly after 2:30 pm. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The matter was called outside the courtroom prior to the commencement of the hearing. Around 2:15 pm my associate attempted to phone the applicant on the Applicant's Phone Number on three occasions. On the third occasion, the applicant answered the phone but, upon my associate identifying herself, terminated the phone call.
2. Ruby Adler from the Australian Government Solicitor appeared for the first respondent. She requested that the application be dismissed under r 22.04 of the Rules.
3. Based on the materials referred to above, I am satisfied the applicant was aware of the date, time and place of the hearing on 24 March 2026. For this reason, I agreed to the first respondent's request to dismiss the Application under r 22.04 of the Rules.

1. If an event prevented the applicant from attending the hearing on 24 March 2026 and he is aggrieved the application was dismissed in his absence, pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the Rules, he may apply to the Court to set aside the dismissal order and thereby re-instate the proceeding. If the applicant files and serves an application under r 24.04(a), he should file and serve an accompanying affidavit which provides evidence explaining the circumstances which prevented him from attending the hearing on 24 March 2026. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, a question may arise as to whether his conduct involves an abuse by the applicant of the process of this Court.
2. If the applicant is genuinely aggrieved the application was dismissed in his absence and he files an application under r 24.04(a):

(a) He should also file and serve a written submission which seeks to identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. If the Court is not persuaded there is a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision, there may be no utility in re-instating the proceeding.

(b) The Court will endeavour to list the re-instatement application promptly for hearing. The applicant must attend the hearing.

1. At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions from the parties on costs. Ms Adler sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $4,900, which was less than the first respondent's solicitor/client costs. I consider this amount is reasonable. I stated at the hearing on 24 March 2026 that I would make an order in this amount.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.