BZO25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 153

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).

(Delivered ex tempore and revised from the transcript)

1. This is an application for judicial review[1] of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal[2] made under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
2. The applicant has not appeared today. The matter has been called outside three times, and my Associates have endeavoured to contact the applicant on the telephone number in the originating application without success. In those circumstances Ms Cornelius, who appears for the Minister, seeks orders for a name change for the Minister, and for dismissal of the Judicial Review Application for non-appearance pursuant to rule 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).[3]
3. The Court notes the following matters:

(a) the Judicial Review Application was filed on 14 February 2025 together with an affidavit annexing a copy of the Tribunal Decision;

(b) on 28 February 2025 the Minister filed a response seeking that the Judicial Review Application be dismissed and on the basis that no jurisdictional error was evident in the Tribunal Decision;

(c) a Court Book was filed on 4 June 2025 and the applicant was provided with both an electronic copy of the Court Book by email, and a hard copy of the Court Book by prepaid post. In that regard, the Court refers to the affidavit of Margarita Carmen Woollett filed on 23 January 2026 which the Court will take as admitted for the purposes of evidence in these proceedings,[4] together with the Court Book, which the Court will mark as exhibit 1;

(d) on 27 May 2025 a Registrar of the Court made the usual order made by a Registrar at a first appearance in migration judicial review matters,[5] including an order that the matter be listed for final hearing on a date to be fixed;

(e) in late November 2025 the matter was docketed to the presently presiding Judge;

(f) on 3 December 2025 a notice of listing was sent to the parties advising of an in-person hearing to be held in the Perth Registry today, 3 February 2026, and that if there was no appearance by the applicant, the matter might be dismissed pursuant to rule 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules;

(g) on 16 January 2026, the Minister filed a written outline of submissions in accordance with the Registrar's Order, and those submissions were served on the applicant by both email and hard copy;[6] and

(h) a confirmation of the listing for today was forwarded to the parties by email by the presiding Judge's Associate on 3 February 2026.

(a) the applicant has not filed an outline of submissions as the applicant was entitled to do pursuant to the Registrar's Order;

(b) there has been no contact of any kind that the Court is aware of with either the Registry or Chambers in relation to the matter; and

(c) the Court is satisfied that the documents which have been referred to and either sent to or served upon the applicant have been sent to the email address for service and also the physical address for service appearing in the Judicial Review Application.

1. As the Court has already observed, when the matter was called today, there was no appearance by the applicant. The matter was called outside three times and there was still no appearance. The presiding Judge has been advised by his Associates that endeavours to contact the applicant by calling him on the mobile telephone number listed in the originating application have been unsuccessful.

1. In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is no appearance by the applicant, and it is appropriate to exercise the discretion under r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules, to order the dismissal of the Judicial Review Application for non-appearance, together with costs. The Court notes that the Minister seeks costs in the sum of $4,200.00, which is below the amount that the Minister would have been entitled to if successful on the hearing of the matter, and judgment being handed down, if the matter had proceeded today.
2. There will also be an order for a name change for the Minister.

I certify that the preceding seven (7) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev.

[2] "Tribunal Decision" and "Tribunal" respectively.