DOL25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 226

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). 3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $4,189.38 by 13 March 2026.

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 an extension of time[1] in which to file an application for judicial review[2] in relation to a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.[3] The application to this Court is made under s 477(2) 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 Dawkins, who appears for the Minister this morning, seeks orders:

(a) for a name change for the Minister to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship";

(b) for dismissal of the Extension of Time Application 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);[4] and

(c) costs in the sum of $4189.38, which reflects the scale amount in relation to an interlocutory hearing of the type listed for hearing today.

(a) that the Extension of Time Application was lodged on 20 February 2025 and accepted for filing on 3 April 2025, together with an affidavit of DOL25 annexing a copy of the Tribunal Decision;

(b) on 23 April 2025 the Minister filed a response seeking that the Extension of Time Application be dismissed on the basis that there was no adequate explanation for the delay and no jurisdictional error evident in the Tribunal Decision;

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

(d) a Court Book was filed on 10 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 post, and the Court refers to the affidavit of Ms Alice Esther Dawkins,[6] filed on 6 February 2026, which has been tendered and is in evidence;

(e) in early December 2025 the matter was docketed to the presently presiding Judge;

(f) on 3 December 2025 a notice of listing was sent to the parties by the Court indicating that an in-person hearing would be heard in the Perth Registry today, 13 February 2026, and that if there was no appearance by the applicant, the matter might be dismissed for

non-appearance pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules;

(g) on 30 January 2026 the Minister filed a written outline of submissions in accordance with the Registrar's Orders, and those submissions were served on the applicant by email on the same day, according to the Dawkins Affidavit; and

(h) a confirmation of the listing for today was forwarded to the parties by the Court by email on 6 February 2026.

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

(b) there has been no contact of any kind by the applicant with either the Registry or Chambers in relation to the matter and also that documents sent by the Minister to the applicant by mail were returned to sender, namely, the hard copy Court Book, and that there has not been any response to emails sent by the Minister to the applicant; 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 and also the physical address appearing in the originating application and which serve as the notices of address for service in this matter.

1. As the Court has already observed, when the matter was called today, there was no appearance by the applicant, and the matter was called outside three times and there was still no appearance, and the presiding Judge has been advised by his Associates that endeavours to contact the applicant by calling on the 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 dismiss the Extension of Time Application for non-appearance, together with costs, and the Court notes that the Minister seeks costs in the sum of $4,189.38, which is the scale amount for an interlocutory hearing of the type that was listed for hearing today.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev.

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

[6] Affidavit of Ms Dawkins filed 6 February 2026 ("Dawkins Affidavit") at [3]-[6].