DPB22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 366

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).

1. These are the reasons for judgment delivered ex tempore on 5 March 2026, revised from transcript only to include extracts of cited documents and to make corrections of typographical errors or minor matters to reflect the intention of the Court.
2. This is an application to review the exercise of a delegated power by a registrar on 5 February 2026. The registrar summarily dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 12 October 2022.
3. The power of the Court to review a decision of a registrar is to be found in s 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).
4. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules) provide for the procedure of the Court for the conduct of a review. Rule 3.08 of the Rules provides that the Court must hear an application as a hearing de novo and must receive as evidence any affidavit and exhibit tendered before the registrar. The Court may also, with leave, receive further evidence.
5. Because this is a hearing de novo of an application for summary dismissal, the first respondent, the Minister, bears the onus of satisfaction under r 23.08(1)(a) of the Rules to show that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the application for judicial review.
6. In the case of AIZ22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 44 at [36]- [37], Her Honour Deputy Chief Justice Mercuri set out the principles to be applied when considering an application for summary dismissal:

[36] It is well settled that in considering an application for summary dismissal either under rule 13.13(a) of the Rules or under section 143(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), it is necessary to establish that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or claim [Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118; Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2018] FCA 473]. It is not necessary for the court to be satisfied that the applicant is bound to fail.

[37] Nonetheless, the discretion to summarily dismiss an application must be exercised with caution, given that it is an order made at a preliminary stage in proceedings and without the benefit of fully developed evidence and argument. However, what is required is a critical examination of the available material to determine whether there is a real question of law of fact which should be decided at trial. The onus is on the party seeking the summary dismissal to persuade the court that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success.

1. In this case, the Minister relies on the Court Book, which has been tendered and marked as exhibit 'R1', and the affidavit of Alina Ali affirmed on 14 November 2025, which has been marked as exhibit 'R2'.
2. From the Court Book and the affidavit, the following background can be established.
3. The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. She first arrived in Australia on 3 October 2019. On 8 December 2019, the applicant applied for a Protection Class XA (Subclass 866) visa, claiming that she feared persecution and harm should she be required to return to Malaysia.
4. On 4 April 2022, a delegate of the Minister sent a letter to the applicant at the address given by her for correspondence, in which the Minister's delegate requested additional information to support the application for the visa. The applicant did not respond to that letter.
5. On 16 May 2022, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a visa. On the same day, a copy of the reasons for the decision of the delegate was sent by prepaid ordinary post to the last known address for service of correspondence on the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant was required to file any application for merits review of that decision with the Tribunal within 28 days of the delegate's decision. That is a requirement of s 412(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), and of reg 4.31(2) of the then Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
6. The applicant did not file an application with the Tribunal within the 28-day period, but instead filed an application in the general division of the Tribunal on 29 June 2022. That application was out of time.
7. On 4 July 2022, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the validity of her application and informed the applicant of a preliminary view that the application was lodged out of time. On 5 July 2022, the applicant responded to the Tribunal's invitation, and explained that she believed she was entitled to have her case reinstated, as she was confused about the period within which to apply to the Tribunal.
8. On 12 October 2022, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the application, because the application for review was not filed within the time prescribed by the Act and the Regulations.
9. On 7 November 2022, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. In that application, the applicant identified four grounds of review. Those grounds were:

1. THE TRIBUNAL FILED TO CONSIDER MANY VITAL INTEGER OF MY CASE.

2. THE TRIBUNAL DEPRIVED ME OF PROCEDURE FAIRNESS.

3. THE TRIBUNAL MEMBER FAILED RELIED ON INCORRECT INFORMATION AND DECIDED MY CASE USING FACTS FORM SOME OTHER CASE.

4. THE TRIBUNAL MEMBER FAILED TO ASK ME QUESTIN ABOUT THE TYPES OF HARM RELAVANT IN MY CASE.

1. It will be immediately seen that these grounds of review bear no relationship to the actual decision of the Tribunal. No particulars were provided to support these broad and general claims.
2. In the affidavit filed 7 November 2022, in support of the application for judicial review, the applicant said the following:

1. I AM APPLICANT OF THE PROCEEDING

2. I AM CONCIDER THAT DAY ARE GRANT, FOR AN APPLICANT FOR REVIEW IN THIS COURT. NOW PRODUCED AND SHOW TO ME DECISION RECORD(A) AND NOTIFICATION OF DECISION(B)

Again, this affidavit did not assist to identify grounds of review relevant to the decision of the Tribunal.

1. On 29 October 2025, the solicitors for the Minister filed an amended response in which the Minister sought summary dismissal of the application for judicial review. That application was heard by Registrar Munro on 5 February 2026, at which the registrar made an order summarily dismissing the application for judicial review. It is from that decision that the applicant now seeks review by this Court. That application for review was listed for hearing today on 5 March 2026.
2. The applicant appeared self-represented, assisted by an interpreter in the Malay and English languages. Mr Dietrich, solicitor, appeared for the Minister.
3. As this was a hearing de novo, Mr Dietrich explained why summary dismissal was appropriate. He relied upon an outline of written submissions dated 14 November 2025. In those submissions, the Minister set out the factual background to the applicant's claims, but submitted that the applicant's application for judicial review had no reasonable prospects of success because the delegate of the Minister had properly sent notification of the departmental decision to the applicant in accordance with the requirements of s 494B(4) of the Act. Under s 494C(4) of the Act, the applicant was deemed to have received that notification seven days after it was sent, and that meant that an application to the Tribunal for review was required to be lodged by 21 June 2022.
4. It was submitted that there was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in making the decision dated 12 October 2022 because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. In response to those submissions, the applicant said that she simply did not receive notification of the decision and that she should be given the opportunity to have her case heard by the Tribunal again. The applicant was unable to expand on or explain the grounds of application in the application for judicial review or identify any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in making its decision.
5. Having considered the documents in the Court Book and the affidavit of Alina Ali affirmed 14 November 2025, I can identify no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in making its decision. The grounds of review in the application for judicial review lack particulars, and the application could be dismissed for that reason alone. However, I am satisfied that the delegate's decision was provided to the applicant in accordance with the requirements of the Act and that the decision of the Tribunal was sound in the circumstances. I, therefore, consider that the application for judicial review has no reasonable prospects of successful prosecution and that the application for judicial review should be summarily dismissed pursuant to rule 23.08(1)(a) of the Rules. I will make the following orders.

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