DKQ25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2114

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 21 March 2025, 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 Review Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 4 February 2025. 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. Since the application to this Court was lodged more than 35 days after the Tribunal's decision, the application included an application to extend time under s 477 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 August 2017, the applicant, a citizen of China, first arrived in Australia on a student visa.
2. On 5 June 2018, the applicant applied for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear a real risk of serious harm if he returned to China on the basis of his religion.
3. On 19 June 2019, a delegate of the first respondent made a decision refusing to grant the visa.
4. On 29 June 2019, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
5. On 5 December 2024, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing on 4 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
6. On 4 February 2025, the applicant did not attend the hearing. On the same day, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

1. On 21 March 2025, the applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The application recorded the applicant's email address (Applicant's Email Address) and phone number (Applicant's Phone Number).
2. On 6 August 2025, a registrar of the Court made procedural orders, including that, upon the matter being listed for hearing, the applicant file and serve at least 28 days before the hearing a written submission, any amended application, and any additional evidence on which he sought to rely.
3. On 7 October 2025, the Court ordered that, pursuant to s 477(2) of the Act_,_ the time to seek judicial review of the Tribunal's decision was extended up to 21 March 2025.
4. On 7 November 2025, the Court made orders listing the matter for final hearing at 10:15 am on 17 December 2025. On the same day, my associate sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address, attaching a copy of the orders. The contents of the email further advised the parties of the date, time and place of the hearing.
5. On 3 December 2025, the first respondent's solicitor sent an email to the applicant at the Applicant's Email Address which included the date, time and place of the hearing, and 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.
6. On 10 December 2025, 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.
7. The applicant did not file or serve any further materials before the hearing on 17 December 2025.

1. The hearing on 17 December 2025 commenced at 10:15 am and concluded shortly before 10:25 am. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The matter was called outside the court room 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. At the hearing, Nicholas Swan of counsel appeared for the first respondent. He requested that the application be dismissed under r 22.04 of the Rules.
3. Mr Swan tendered the email correspondence dated between 7 November 2025 and 10 December 2025 referred to in paragraphs 12 to 14 above.
4. Based on the materials referred to above, I am satisfied the applicant was aware of the date, time and place of the hearing on 17 December 2025. For this reason, at the hearing I agreed to Mr Swan's request to dismiss the application under r 22.04 of the Rules.

1. If an event prevented the applicant from attending the hearing on 17 December 2025 and he is aggrieved that the 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 file and serve an accompanying affidavit which provides evidence explaining the circumstances which prevented him from attending the hearing on 17 December 2025. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the applicant, a question may arise as to whether his conduct involves an abuse by the applicant of the process of the Court.
2. If the applicant is genuinely aggrieved that the application was dismissed in his absence and he files an application under r 24.04(a):

(a) He should also file and serve a written submission which seeks to identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. If the Court is not persuaded there is a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision, there may be no utility in re-instating the proceeding.

(b) The Court will endeavour to list the re-instatement application promptly for hearing. The applicant must attend the hearing.

1. Mr Swan sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $8,400 which was the first respondent's party/party costs. The amount sought is less than the scale amount of $9,097.93. I consider the amount is reasonable. I will make this order.

I certify that the preceding twenty-two (22) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.