BVX20 V Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1982 (2 December 2025)

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 4 May 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 30 April 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 May 2016, the applicant, a citizen of China, arrived in Australia as the holder of a visitor visa.
2. On 13 July 2016, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa.
3. On 15 February 2017, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied the applicant satisfied s 36(2) of the Act.
4. On 28 February 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
5. On 2 April 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing on 23 April 2020.
6. On 23 April 2020, the applicant appeared at a hearing before the Tribunal via telephone to give evidence and present arguments, with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.
7. On 30 April 2020, 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 28 November 2025

1. On 4 May 2020, the applicant filed in this Court an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The application recorded the applicant's email address (Applicant's Email Address) and phone number (Applicant's Phone Number).
2. Following a period of inactivity, on 5 March 2025 the registry of the Court sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address, stating the matter was listed for callover on 24 March 2025.
3. On 24 March 2025, the applicant attended the callover before a registrar by telephone, assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. The registrar made procedural orders, including that, upon the matter being listed for hearing, the applicant file and serve at least 28 days before the hearing a written submission, any amended application, and any additional evidence on which he sought to rely.
4. On 23 September 2025, the registry of the Court sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address, stating the matter was listed for hearing on 28 November 2025.
5. On 24 September 2025, the first respondent's solicitor sent an email to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address which included the date, time and place of the hearing, and added that if the applicant did not appear at the hearing, the first respondent may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance.
6. On 20 November 2025, my associate 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.
7. The applicant did not file or serve any further materials before the hearing on 28 November 2025.

1. The hearing on 28 November 2025 commenced at 2:15 pm and concluded shortly before 2:25 pm. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The matter was called outside the court room prior to the commencement of the hearing. Around 2:15 pm my associate attempted to phone the applicant on the Applicant's Phone Number. There was a voice message that the phone number was no longer in service.
2. At the hearing, Matthew Wong from MinterEllison appeared for the first respondent. He 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 28 November 2025. Among other matters, that the applicant attended the callover on 24 March 2025 indicates that the Applicant's Email Address was current up to at least March 2025. I agreed to Mr Wong'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 28 November 2025 and he is aggrieved that 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 28 November 2025. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the applicant, a question may arise as to whether his conduct involves an abuse by the applicant of the process of the Court.
2. If the applicant is genuinely aggrieved that 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. Mr Wong sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $5,900 which was less than the first respondent's solicitor/client costs and less than the scale amount of $9,097.93. I consider this amount is reasonable. I will make this order.

I certify that the preceding twenty-two (22) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.