EIQ25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 494

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. This is an application for judicial review[1] of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal[2] made under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).[3]
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 provided in the Notice of Withdrawal of Lawyer[4] filed by the applicant's former lawyers.
3. In those circumstances, Mr Mayne, who appears for the Minister, seeks orders:

(1) for dismissal 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);[5] and

(2) for a costs order for the Minister in the sum of $4553.02 which is the scheduled sum in the Court's costs schedule for an interlocutory proceeding of this type, it being a matter which ought to have been an application for an extension of time.

(a) the Judicial Review Application was lodged on 22 April 2025, and accepted for filing on 23 April 2025 together with an affidavit of the applicant annexing a copy of the Tribunal Decision;

(b) on 2 May 2025 the Minister filed a response seeking that the Judicial Review Application be dismissed on the basis that:

(i) the Court has no jurisdiction to review the Tribunal Decision dated 14 March 2015, as the Judicial Review Application was not filled within 35 days of the date of the Tribunal Decision and s 477(1) of the Migration Act therefore applies; and

(ii) the applicant has not requested an extension of time in their Judicial Review Application and has not filed an affidavit explaining the delay or why an extension should be granted;

(iii) the Judicial Review Application does not provide any particulars to the grounds of review;

(iv) the Judicial Review Application invites the Court to undertake a review of the merits of the Tribunal Decision a course not permitted;[6] and

(v) the Judicial Review Application does not establish any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision.

(c) a Court Book was filed on 15 May 2025;

(d) on 21 November 2025 a Registrar of the Court made the usual orders made by a Registrar at a first appearance in migration judicial review matters,[7] including an order that the matter be listed for an extension of time on a date to be fixed notwithstanding it appears that the extension of time had not actually been requested in the Judicial Review Application proper;

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

(f) on 3 December 2025 the matter was listed for an interlocutory hearing on 17 February 2026 for an extension of time in which to file the Judicial Review Application;

(g) on 29 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;

(h) on 17 February 2026 the Court:

(i) received by email from the applicant's solicitors an affidavit signed by the applicant. The affidavit related to the delay in filing of the Judicial Review Application but it was never officially filed;

(ii) made an order that the applicant have leave to file and serve an application in a proceeding for an extension of time in which to file and serve an amended originating application (including an application for extension of time);[8] and

(iii) raised the issue of whether it is appropriate in the circumstances for the applicant's solicitors to pay any costs as a result of their conduct in the proceedings;

(i) on 16 March 2026 a notice of listing was sent to the parties indicating that an in-person directions hearing was to be held in the Perth Registry today, 27 March 2026. The applicant was copied into this email;

(j) the applicant's solicitors withdrew on 17 March 2026. In relation to the withdrawal:

(i) on 7 March 2026 the applicant's solicitors lodged a NOWAL and notice of intention to withdraw as lawyer which were accepted for filing on 10 March 2026;

(ii) on 16 March 2026 the Minister by email advised the Court that the notice of intention to withdraw filed by the applicant's solicitors was not in the approved form in accordance with r 4.05(3) of the GFL Rules;

(iii) on 17 March 2026 the applicant's solicitors filed an amended NOWAL and notice of intention to withdraw as lawyer which were accepted for filing on 19 March 2026; and

(iv) the NOWAL filed on 19 March 2026 is dated 10 March 2026, and so the applicant was notified of today's hearing on 10 March 2026; and

(k) a confirmation of the listing for today was forwarded to the parties by email on 24 March 2026, indicating that if there was no appearance by the applicant, the matter might be dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a)(i) of the GFL Rules.

(a) the applicant has not filed an application in a proceeding as the applicant was entitled to do pursuant to the Court's Orders of 17 February 2026;

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

(c) there has been no contact of any kind by the applicant with either the Registry or Chambers in relation to the matter since his lawyers withdrew; and

(d) 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 for the applicant provided by the applicant's former lawyers in the NOWAL.

1. As the Court has already observed when the matter was called today, there was no appearance by the applicant. 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 for the applicant provided by the applicant's former lawyers in the NOWAL 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 Judicial Review Application for non-appearance together with costs and the Court notes that the Minister seeks costs in the sum of $4553.02.
2. The Court will therefore make the following orders:

(1) the originating application filed 23 April 2025 be dismissed 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); and

(2) the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $4553.02 by 27 April 2026.

I certify that the preceding eight (8) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev.

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

[3] "Migration Act".

[6] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6, (1996) 185 CLR 259, (1996) 70 ALJR 568, (1996) 136 ALR 481, (1996) 41 ALD 1.