The applicant's grounds of application are as follows:
I am a refugee seeking for protection visa.
I am applying for judicial review for my visa to be considered again.
I am not able to go back to Leste Timor as my life is in danger back there.
At the hearing of her review application, the applicant was given the opportunity to tell the Court what errors the Tribunal had made in its decision. For this purpose, the Court explained to the applicant that its role on judicial review was limited to a consideration of the decision and process undertaken by the Tribunal and that this involved an inquiry into whether the decision or process was affected by one or more type of jurisdictional error. The Court explained that jurisdictional error can include the denial to an applicant of an opportunity to present their case or material, a failure to consider relevant material, taking into account irrelevant material or a misunderstanding or misapplication of the relevant law. The Court explained that the hearing was not concerned with the question of whether the applicant should be granted a visa and that axiomatically, the Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the applicant a visa. Despite this, the applicant's only submission was to the effect that she wanted the Tribunal to reconsider her case, including so that she could obtain a visa with working rights.
The grounds of application do not allege anything in the nature of jurisdictional error. However, given that the applicant is self-represented, the Court is obliged to undertake its own evaluation of the decision and process of the Tribunal.[1] In order to do so it is necessary to trace the procedural background to the Tribunal decision under review which included the following events:
On 18 September 2020, the applicant applied for the visa (CB 1-18). The applicant's claims for protection included:
The applicant was threatened that imprisonment or death would result from her failure to repay borrowed money.
The applicant did not have money to discharge the debts and was afraid of being killed if she returned to Timor-Leste.
The lender attended the applicant's residence and had threatened to harm her and her family.
The applicant is unable to relocate to avoid harm, given the large size of her family and the old age of her parents.
The applicant will be tortured daily and interest on the loan would accrue every month.
The sum borrowed was so substantial that assistance could not be obtained from the police, non-governmental organisations or local politicians.
The applicant had been paying interest on the loan while in Australia which prevented harm to her family members, but upon return to Timor-Leste she would not have a job and would be unable to pay the loan.
On the same day, the Department of Home affairs confirmed it had received the application for the visa and noted that all communications would be sent to the applicant's nominated email address xx@xx.com (CB 22-24).
On 16 March 2023, a delegate of the Minister decided to refuse to grant the applicant the visa (CB 35-44). The delegate found that the harm apprehended by the applicant was not for reasons recognised under s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria of s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate relied on country information to find that the applicant could obtain from an authority of the country, protection such that for the purposes of s 36(2B)(b) of the Act, there would not be a real risk that she would suffer significant harm on a return to Timor-Leste. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
On the same day, the applicant made an application to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision (CB 45-49).
On 11 September 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend an in-person hearing on 28 September 2023 (CB 53-61). The applicant was invited to complete a response to hearing form and provide all documents intended to be relied upon at the hearing. The hearing invitation form identified that in the event the applicant failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the application.
On 21 September 2023 and 27 September 2023, the Tribunal sent text message hearing reminders to the applicant's nominated mobile number (CB 63-65).
[2]
The applicant did not attend the scheduled hearing on 28 September 2023. As a result, the Tribunal made a decision to dismiss the application pursuant to s 426(1A)(b) of the Act and prepared a brief set of reasons which included the following:
The invitation to attend the hearing included information that the Tribunal may dismiss the application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before it. The applicant was sent two text message reminders about the hearing five and one business days before the scheduled hearing.
The applicant did not respond to the hearing invitation, contact the Tribunal or attend the hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was properly invited to the hearing pursuant to s 441A(5) of the Act and the invitation was not returned to sender.
The Tribunal made the decision to dismiss the application without further consideration of the application or the information before the Tribunal.
On 28 September 2025, the applicant was notified of the dismissal decision by an email to her nominated email address. The notification of decision letter advised the applicant that she could apply for reinstatement within 14 days (this being identified in the letter as 12 October 2023) (CB 67). The enclosed fact sheet contained the advice that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 14-day period meant that the Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application which would mean that the decision of the delegate remains in force (CB 70).
[3]
On 16 October 2023, the Tribunal confirmed its decision to dismiss the application and prepared a second statement of written reasons which recorded: (CB 74-75)
The decision on 28 September 2023 to dismiss the application pursuant to s 462A(1A)(b) was due to the applicant's failure to attend the hearing to give evidence and present arguments relating to her application.
The Tribunal identified that the applicant was notified of the dismissal decision and provided a copy of the reasons for the decision pursuant to s 426B(5) of the Act. The applicant was informed that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.
The Tribunal recorded that in circumstances where the applicant had not applied for reinstatement within the 14-day period, it followed that the decision to dismiss the application must be confirmed and the decision of the delegate was taken to be affirmed.
The Minister submits against this background that the applicant's judicial review challenge has no prospects of success. This does not just reflect the lack of obvious merit in the grounds identified in the applicant's originating application.
The Minister submits that it was open and reasonable for the Tribunal to dismiss the application without further consideration in accordance with s 426A(1A)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal complied with its obligations under Div 4, Pt 7 of the Act (the relevant legislation at the time). The applicant was correctly invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal on 28 September 2023, which she failed to attend. The invitation given on 11 September 2023 provided notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, was transmitted to the applicant's nominated email address, complied with the prescribed notice period, and contained a statement pursuant to s 425A(4) that explained the effect of 426A of the Act. The Tribunal sent the applicant two SMS hearing reminders, and she had not engaged with the review process.
The Minister submits that the applicant was put on notice of the dismissal decision in accordance with s 426B(5) of the Act and did not apply for reinstatement within the 14-day period prescribed. Due to the applicant's non-engagement with the process, it followed that the only decision open to the Tribunal was to confirm the dismissal in accordance with s 426A(1E) of the Act.
I concur in this analysis. The Tribunal correctly applied a series of statutory provisions that were clearly identified for the applicant through the communications sent to her. These statutory provisions created consequences for the applicant's review, including that the Tribunal was not required to engage with the merits of her substantive visa application and ultimately, was obliged to affirm (by way of confirmation of the dismissal decision) the decision of the delegate.
The Tribunal did not in these narrow circumstances deny the applicant procedural fairness or approach the disposition of the applicant's review in a manner that disclosed error. The Tribunal had a limited remit purely because the applicant failed to engage with the review process, on two occasions.
As a result, I can discern no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision, and the applicant does not have reasonable prospects of succeeding in her application for judicial review filed in this Court. It would be futile to permit her to maintain her application.
[4]
Accordingly, I dismiss the application for review filed on 2 August 2025 and will order that the applicant pay the Minister's costs fixed in the amount of $1,000, which amount is a proportionate response to the work done by the Minister's lawyers in defending this application.
[5]
I certify that the preceding thirty-four (34) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Symons.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2058
Legislation Cited (3)
Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021
Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025
Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021
Cases Cited (2)
The Court has the power to set aside a judgment or order after it has been entered if, among other things, it was made in the absence of a party (r 24.04(a) of the Rules). This would have the effect of reinstating the applicant's application seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal.
The principles which the Court must consider in deciding whether to set aside an order dismissing an application for non-appearance are settled. The Court has a broad discretion, but in exercising that discretion must consider whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to make the orders sought. Resolution of this question ordinarily requires considering the explanation for the non-appearance, whether there is any prejudice to the other party and whether the applicant has a reasonably arguable prospect of success in the substantive application.
In this case, I am also required to consider whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time in which to prosecute her application for review. This reflects the requirement that an application for review be made within 21 days after the day on which the power (of the Registrar) is exercised (r 3.06(1) of the Rules). In this case, the application for review was filed on 2 December 2025 when (if made on time) it should have been filed on 19 November 2025. The application is 13 days out of time. Rule 1.15 of the Rules empowers the Court to extend (or shorten) time fixed by the Rules or by a judgment or order of the Court. There are no express limits to the way this power is to be exercised although the implication is that it is to be exercised reasonably.
The question of delay also arises in relation to the application for reinstatement, which was filed on 3 September 2025. Although the Rules did not at the time of the dismissal decision made in January 2025 stipulate any time frame for making an application to set-aside a judgment or order, the Rules now provide that such application must be filed within 21 days after the judgment or order was entered (r 24.04 of the Rules). The point that the Minister makes now (and made when the matter was before the Registrar) is that in circumstances where the application for reinstatement was made eight months after the applicant's matter was dismissed, the Court may take this delay into account as a factor operating against the applicant and her prospects of reinstatement (referring to FBS18 v Minister for Home Affairs[2019] FCAFC 196 at [53], [56] and AHN17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2018] FCA 1598 at [42]).
I acknowledge that the applicant has prevaricated on these two occasions. However, the approach that commends itself to me is to grant the applicant an extension of 13 days to make her review application and to deal with that application having regard to the considerations identified in paragraph eight above.