DIZ25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 455

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. The matter was listed for an extension of time hearing before the Court at 10:00am AWST on 23 March 2026. When the matter commenced, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the applicant either in person or by telephone.
2. In the circumstances, the Court made the following orders:
   1. The application for an extension of time be dismissed 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).
   2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $4,189.38.
3. These reasons explain why the Court dismissed the matter for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (the Rules).

1. Before the Court is an application for an extension of time filed in the Perth Registry of this Court on 18 March 2025 (the application). That application was accompanied by an affidavit which was deposed by the applicant on that same day.
2. The application was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). By that application, the applicant sought review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 6 February 2023. In that decision, the Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to determine the applicant's application for review because it was made outside the prescribed time period.
3. On 26 November 2025, the applicant appeared via telephone at a callover hearing before Judicial Registrar Munro. At that callover hearing, the Registrar made orders that the matter be listed for hearing of the extension of time application on a date to be advised.
4. On 8 January 2026, the parties were sent a listing notice (via email) advising them that the matter had been listed for an extension of time hearing before Judge Gerrard at 10:00am on 23 March 2026.
5. When the matter came before the Court on 23 March 2026, the applicant did not appear. Ms Dawkins appeared in person as counsel on behalf of the Minister. My associate made three unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant via the telephone number provided in the footer of his application. My associate then called the applicant's pseudonym and file number three times within the precincts of the courtroom. The applicant failed to appear and otherwise had not made any further contact with the Court to explain his non-attendance.
6. In those circumstances, counsel for the Minister applied to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the Rules. Counsel also sought the Minister's costs fixed in the sum of $4,189.38.
7. In support of that application, counsel for the Minister sought to rely on the affidavit of Alice Esther Dawkins affirmed and filed on 16 March 2026, and the email from the Court to the parties dated 8 January 2026 which advised the applicant of the date of today's hearing.
8. Noting the correspondence from the Court and the Minister's lawyers, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had been properly notified of the date and time of today's hearing but did not appear at the designated time.
9. In respect of the costs order sought on behalf of the Minister, the Court was satisfied that the amount sought was appropriate in the circumstances, noting that it is the scale amount for a proceeding concluded at or before an interlocutory hearing as set out in Schedule 2, Part 2, Division 1 of the Rules. The Minister effectively was required to prepare for an extension of time hearing. The Minister had filed a Court Book and written submissions, and Ms Dawkins was prepared to make oral submissions today.

1. In the circumstances, the Court made orders to dismiss the matter for non-appearance and award costs to the Minister, as outlined at [2] above.
2. The Court notes that the applicant can apply to have his application reinstated pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the Rules.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard.