BCN23 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 410

(delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript)

1. This is an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the orders of a judge of Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
2. In chronological order, the series of decisions culminating in the application before me today are the following.
3. On 30 November 2022, a delegate of the Minister refused the applicant's protection visa application.
4. On 28 March 2023, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application to it for review of the decision of the delegate of the Minister.
5. On 1 March 2024, a Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2) summarily dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal.
6. On 28 April 2024, a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2) dismissed the applicant's application for review of the Registrar's decision under s 143 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).
7. On 11 May 2024, the applicant applied to this Court for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of the primary judge.
8. The summary dismissal orders of the primary judge are interlocutory in nature which is why the applicant requires leave to appeal from them: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24(1)(d) and 24(1A). Section 24(1D)(ca) of the Federal Court of Australia Act provides an equivalent summary dismissal under s 17A of the now repealed Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) (repealed) is taken to be interlocutory, but the Federal Court of Australia Act appears not to have been updated by amendment in this respect to now include a reference to s 143 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act. That notwithstanding, the summary dismissal orders are still taken to be interlocutory in nature: CIK23 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 896 at [12] (Bromwich J), citing EBW21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 341 at [31] (Feutrill J). See also Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 354 at [11] (Lee J).
9. The applicant is in default in many respects. He was ordered on 20 May 2024 to file a draft notice of appeal within ten business days of that date, and written submissions no later than ten business days before the hearing. He did neither. He is also in default of appearance on the hearing of his application today. In that regard, on 7 April 2026, the applicant informed the Court by email that he would not be attending today's hearing. No explanation was given. That is the only communication the Court and the first respondent have had from the applicant since this matter was docketed to me in December 2025. (It is not apparent to me why a matter commenced in May 2024 was not docketed until December 2025.)
10. Mr Wong, who appears for the Minister, asks that the proceeding be dismissed under r 35.33(1)(a) on account of the absence of the applicant when the matter was called on for hearing.
11. I am satisfied that the proceeding should be dismissed under that provision. Not only is the power of dismissal enlivened but there are ample grounds for the exercise of the discretion to dismiss the proceeding, in particular the applicant's many defaults already referred to, and his indication of having no intention of appearing today. That indication also establishes that he was aware of the hearing today.
12. I will therefore dismiss the proceeding. The Minister should have his costs.

I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stewart.