BVZ22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 270

1. The application 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).
2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent in the sum of $9,097.93.

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 3 June 2022, the applicant lodged 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 2 May 2022. 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 January 2013, the applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Australia on a student (subclass 572) visa.
2. On 6 July 2016, the applicant lodged an application for a protection (subclass 866) visa claiming to fear a risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan.
3. On 10 November 2017, a delegate of the first respondent, after interviewing the applicant on 26 October 2017, refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under 36(2) of the Act.
4. On 1 December 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
5. On 26 August 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing to give evidence and present arguments on 12 October 2021, which was postponed to 30 November 2021.
6. On 30 November 2021, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal.
7. On 2 May 2022, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

1. The Tribunal at [12]-[17] summarised the applicant's evidence provided to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
2. The Tribunal at [18]-[53] summarised the applicant's evidence provided to the Tribunal.
3. The applicant claimed that in about 2003 his father purchased a property with a business partner, M, the business relationship between the applicant's father and M deteriorated, following which M harmed or threatened to harm the applicant. The Tribunal at [60]-[61] accepted the applicant's father and M purchased a property, but did not accept that M harmed or threatened to harm the applicant. The Tribunal at [61] did "not find the applicant's claims in respect of the risk of harm from [M] to be credible".
4. The Tribunal at [62]-[65] considered whether the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm in Pakistan because of the political or security situation. The Tribunal at [65] found "as a Sunni male who is not engaged in religious activism and holds no political affiliations, I do not accept that the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm for" a Convention reason.
5. It followed that, as found by the Tribunal at [66], the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for a protection visa in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
6. The Tribunal at [67]-[71] considered whether the applicant satisfied the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal at [71] was not satisfied the applicant satisfied s 36(2)(aa).
7. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant the visa.

Judicial review application and steps up to hearing on 23 February 2026

1. On 3 June 2022, the applicant lodged an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's decision (Application). The grounds in the Application are as follows:

1. The AAT acted unreasonably.

2. The AAT did not consider the evidence or claims I put forward.

1. The Application recorded the applicant's email address (Applicant's Email Address) and phone number (Applicant's Phone Number).
2. On 5 September 2022, a registrar of the Court made procedural orders in Chambers, including that, upon the matter being listed for final hearing, the applicant file and serve at least 28 days before the hearing a written submission and any amended application with proper particulars and further evidence.
3. Following a period of inactivity, on 9 July 2025 there was a directions hearing before a registrar of the Court which the applicant attended by telephone.
4. On 16 July 2025, the applicant filed a notice of address for service. The applicant's contact email address, being the Applicant's Email Address, remained unchanged.
5. On 18 December 2025, the registry of the Court sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address, stating that the matter was listed for hearing at 10:15 am on 23 February 2026 at the Parramatta registry of the Court.
6. On 26 January 2026, the applicant filed a notice of address for service. The applicant's contact email address, being the Applicant's Email Address, remained unchanged. The applicant's contact phone number, being the Applicant's Phone Number, also remained unchanged.
7. On 6 February 2026, the first respondent filed a written submission.
8. On 6 February 2026, the first respondent's solicitor sent an email to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address. The email reminded the applicant of the date, time and place of the hearing. The email added that if the applicant did not appear at the hearing, the first respondent may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance with costs.
9. On 15 February 2026, 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. The email added the courtroom (Courtroom 4) for the hearing.
10. The applicant did not file or serve any further materials prior to the hearing on 23 February 2026.

1. The hearing on 23 February 2026 commenced at 10:20 am and concluded shortly after 10:30 am. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The matter was called outside the courtroom prior to the commencement of the hearing. Around 10:15 am 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. Mr Chuyi Wang from Clayton Utz Lawyers 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 23 February 2026. For this reason, I agreed to the first respondent's request to dismiss the Application under r 22.04 of the Rules.

1. My associate informed me that, shortly after the hearing concluded and Mr Wang left the courtroom, the applicant attempted to enter the courtroom. That the applicant attempted to enter the courtroom after the hearing concluded does not cure the fact that he was not present during the hearing of his application.

1. If the applicant feels aggrieved that his 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 also file and serve the documents explained in the following paragraphs.
2. First, the applicant should file and serve an affidavit which provides evidence explaining:

(a) why he did not attend the hearing on 23 February 2026 until more than 15 minutes after the start time;

(b) why the telephone number he provided in the notice of address for service filed on 26 January 2026 was no longer in service; and

(c) why he did not comply with the Court's procedural orders made on 5 September 2022 to file and serve a written submission at least 28 days before the final hearing.

(a) the generic grounds in the Application; and

(b) the applicant's failure to file and serve a written submission prior to the hearing on 23 February 2026,

makes me concerned that the applicant commenced the proceeding "for a collateral purpose ... of extending the period of [his] stay in Australia", which is an abuse of the process of this Court: see SZBNW v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 436 at [16]; see also Roser v Immigration Review Tribunal (No 2) (1992) 29 ALD 182 at 186, which in turn relied on Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509 at 529.

1. If the applicant does not provide a satisfactory explanation concerning the matters in paragraph 33 above, this may contribute to the Court's concern that the applicant's conduct involves an abuse of the process of this Court.
2. Second, the grounds in the Application are generic and lack particulars. A "failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it": NWWJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 176 at [37]. The Court is unlikely to reinstate a proceeding if the applicant cannot identify a ground of review with reasonable prospects of success. As stated in CAL15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2016] FCA 1344 at [4], "if there were no arguable case on judicial review, it is unlikely it could be said that a favourable exercise of the discretion to reinstate would advance the interests of the administration of justice in terms of the effective use of judicial resources, costs to the respondent, and fairness to an applicant". If the applicant genuinely wants to reinstate the Application, he should file and serve a written submission which seeks to identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

1. Mr Wang sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the scale amount of $9,097.93. Mr Wang stated, if one takes into account the legal costs in attending the hearing today, this amount does not exceed the first respondent's solicitor/client costs. At the hearing on 23 February 2026, I stated that I was willing to make an order in the amount sought by Mr Wang.

I certify that the preceding thirty-seven (37) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.