CEZ24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 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 14 November 2025, Judicial Registrar Chapman (Judicial Registrar), in the exercise of the delegated power dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review pursuant to r 23.08(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (2025 GFL Rules), on the basis that the claim for relief had no reasonable prospect of success (Registrar's Decision). By an application accepted for filing on 24 November 2025, the applicant seeks a review of the Registrar's Decision.
2. Pursuant to r 3.06(1) of the 2025 GFL Rules, the application for review of the exercise of a power by a Registrar must be made within 21 days after the day on which the power was exercised. I note the application for review of the Registrar's Decision was brought within time.

1. The background to this matter was set out at [3] to [20] of the Minister's submissions dated 19 September 2025, which I adopt and revise as appropriate.
2. The applicant is a citizen of Vanuatu who applied for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (protection visa) on 10 September 2023 (Court Book (CB) 22 to 39).
3. On 20 October 2023, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a protection visa (delegate's decision) (CB 67 to 70).

1. On 21 October 2023, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate's decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) (CB 71 to 77). The applicant provided his email address as "austravelvuro@gmail.com" (nominated email address), and his mobile number as "0457859595" (nominated mobile number). The same email and mobile number were provided by the applicant to the Department. The applicant did not appoint a representative or an authorised recipient.
2. On 10 January 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant at the nominated email address, inviting him to attend an in-person hearing scheduled for 29 February 2024 at 10:00am (initial hearing invitation) (CB 95 to 97).
3. On 24 January 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant at the nominated email address noting its understanding that the applicant was located in Griffith. The email invited the applicant to advise the Tribunal if he wished to attend the scheduled hearing via video (CB 106).
4. On 24 January 2024, the applicant emailed the Tribunal using the nominated email address and indicated that he wanted to attend the scheduled hearing via video call (CB 107 and 108).
5. On 25 January 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant at the nominated email address, inviting him to attend a hearing by Microsoft Teams video conference on 29 February 2024 at 10:00am (hearing invitation). The MR 18 Fact Sheet attached to the initial hearing invitation, inter alia, relevantly stated (CB 101 and 102):

If you do not appear at the scheduled hearing, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable you to appear before us or may dismiss your application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before us...

...

Within 14 days after receiving notice of the dismissal decision you may apply for reinstatement of the application.

...

If we decide not to reinstate the application, or if you fail to apply for reinstatement within the 14-day period, we must confirm the decision to dismiss the application.

1. On 15 February 2024, the Tribunal emailed the applicant at the nominated email address inviting the applicant to attend a video test session by Microsoft Teams on 22 February 2024 at 1:30pm (video test session) (CB 115 and 116).
2. On 22 February 2024, the applicant failed to attend the video test session (CB 120).

1. On 29 February 2024, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing (CB 117 to 119). On the same day, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to s 426A(1A)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) (Dismissal Decision) (CB 126 and 127), and notified the applicant by email to the nominated email address of the Dismissal Decision and the applicant's entitlement to apply for reinstatement by 14 March 2024 (CB 122 and 123).
2. On 4 April 2024, noting the applicant had not applied for reinstatement, the Tribunal confirmed the Dismissal Decision under s 426A(1E) of the Act (Confirmation Decision) (CB 130 and 131). On 5 April 2024, the applicant was notified of the Confirmation Decision by email from the Tribunal to the nominated email address (CB 129).

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On 2 May 2024, the applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's Confirmation Decision dated 4 April 2024. The following ground for judicial review was raised in the application (as per original):

Administrative Appeals Tribunal had not acted in the best interest of the applicant (procedural fairness issue) as mentioned in affidavit attached here with.

1. The affidavit of the applicant filed on 2 May 2024 which enclosed the Tribunal's Confirmation Decision at Annexure A and the delegate's decision at Annexure B stated the following (as per original):
   1. Heare Attached Annexure A and B
   2. AAT had not acted in the best interest of the application (Procedure fairness Issue)
   3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis of that application did not satisfy requirements of Section 109(1), 102, 103, 104, 105, 107(2) to the migration law 1994
2. On 1 August 2024, the Minister in his response sought orders that the application for judicial review be dismissed by summary dismissal.
3. On 14 November 2025, pursuant to r 23.08(1)(a) of the 2025 GFL Rules, Judicial Registrar Chapman summarily dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review on the basis that the applicant's claim for relief had no reasonable prospect of success, and ordered the applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $4,553.02.
4. On 22 November 2025, the applicant filed in this Court an application for review of the Registrar's Decision and the corresponding orders dated 14 November 2025. The applicant sought the following orders in his application for review (as per original):
   1. An order that the application for leave to appeal be heard by Registrar CHAPMAN of this court
   2. An order that subject to any contrary direction of the court, the application for leave to appeal be heard community with or alternatively, immediately before the appeal described in the draft notice of appeal field with this application
   3. A direction that the parties with part 36 of the Federal court rules 2011.
   4. An order that the order of the Federal Circuit court be quashed
   5. A write mandamus directed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) or Minister requiring them to determine the Appellant's application according to law.
   6. An injunction restraining the Minister by himself or by his department, officers delegates or agents from relying upon the decision of the AAT.
   7. Any appropriate relief Honourable Court may think so fit.
   8. Cost
5. In support of the application for review of the Registrar's Decision, the applicant filed an affidavit affirmed on 21 November 2025, which annexed the orders of Judicial Registrar Chapman dated 14 November 2025 and stated the following (as per original):
   1. I am the Appellant and am making this Judicial Review Appeal against the judgement of Federal Circuit Court of Australia made on 14TH NOVEMBER 2025 at BRISBANE.
   2. I am citizen of VANUATU. I have applied for Protection Visa subclass - class XA 866 visa on 10 SEPTEMBER 2023 .
   3. My visa was refused by the Department of Home Affairs on 20 OCTOBER 2023.
   4. I filed review application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to seek review of decision pursuant to relevant provisions of the Migration Act to refuse Protection visa by the Department.
   5. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed decision of delegate of Department of Home Affairs on 04 APRIL 2024
   6. I have applied for the judicial review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
   7. The Hon Federal Circuit Court Registrar CHAPMAN dismissed judicial review application on 14TH NOVEMBER 2025. Annexed herewith an Annexure - AB1 a judgement of Registrar Cummings
   8. Federal Circuit Court Registrar Order to file in the Federal Court of Australia for your consideration.
   9. I request Honourable Federal Court of Australia to consider my circumstance and mistake made by the Federal Circuit Court Registrar and Administrative Appeals Tribunal and allow my appeal to be heard and make decision in my favour.
6. On 28 November 2025, the proceedings were docketed to my list and set down for hearing before me.

1. By email dated 28 November 2025, the parties were notified that the matter had been listed for hearing of the application for review of the Registrar's Decision before me at 11:00am on 8 December 2025 in-person in Court Room 8.3, Level 8, 80 William Street, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011 (listing email). The listing email was tendered and marked "Exhibit 2" at today's hearing. I note this email was sent to the applicant's email address appearing on the application for review of the Registrar's Decision, which is the last email address provided to the Court and is the email address that appeared on the applicant's affidavit affirmed on 21 November 2025 and accepted for filing on 24 November 2025 (applicant's last provided email address).
2. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The Minister is represented by Mr Matthew Wong from MinterEllison. The matter was called three times outside of the courtroom at 11:15am and there was no appearance by the applicant. The time is now 11:27am and the applicant has still not appeared.

APPLICATION BY THE MINISTER TO DISMISS THE MATTER

1. The Minister made an application that the matter be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the 2025 GFL Rules consequent on the non-appearance of the applicant. The Minister relied on an email sent on 28 November 2025 from Tammy Joslin of MinterEllison to the applicant's last provided email address, which was tendered and marked "Exhibit 1". In the said email, the Minister reiterated that the matter was listed before me in-person at 11:00am today. The Minister also attached a copy of the listing email and put the applicant on notice that if he did not appear at the hearing, the Minister may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance under r 22.04(1)(a) of the 2025 GFL Rules.
2. It is now 11:39am and the applicant has still not appeared. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant has been notified of the time, date and location of this hearing, and for whatever reason has chosen not to appear. In all the above circumstances, I am prepared to dismiss the proceedings pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the 2025 GFL Rules consequent upon the non-appearance of the applicant.

1. The Minister sought $850 in cost in relation to the review of the Registrar's Decision, in addition to the $4,553.02 ordered by the Judicial Registrar. I find the amount of $850 is fair and reasonable in light of the work that had been undertaken by the Minister.

I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kaur-Bains.