FYZ25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 458

1. The applicant is a citizen of India (Court Book ("CB") 1-3 & 22-23). He first arrived in Australia in September 2019 as the holder of a Visitor (Class FA) (Subclass 600) visa (CB 46).
2. On 26 October 2019, the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (the "visa") (CB 1-23 & 46). In his visa application, the applicant answered "no" when asked whether he "authorise[d] another person to receive communication about [the] application on [his] behalf" but agreed to the Department Home Affairs (the "Department") communicating with him via email (CB 6-7). The applicant provided the Department with an email address (the "applicant's first nominated email address") so that this could occur (CB 7).
3. On 12 November 2019, the Department acknowledged receipt of the visa application (by way of letter sent to the applicant's first nominated email address) and asked the applicant to attend the Department's Melbourne offices to provide his "personal identifiers" (including fingerprints, a digital photograph and a copy of the applicant's current passport) (CB 24-32).
4. On 11 November 2020, the Department asked the applicant (by way of letter sent to the applicant's first nominated email address) to provide more information (pursuant to s 56 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the "Act") in relation to his visa application (CB 33-40). In particular, the Department advised the applicant that his statement of protection claims lacked "substantiating details such as dates and locations" and the applicant was asked to provide "further comments, additional information and supporting evidence" in that regard (CB 39).
5. No response was provided by or on behalf of the applicant (CB 47).
6. On 9 December 2020, a delegate of the first respondent (the "Minister") refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 45-49). The applicant was notified of the delegate's decision by letter dated 9 December 2020 (CB 41-44). The notification letter was sent to the applicant by email to the applicant's first nominated email address, together with a copy of the delegate's decision (CB 41-49).
7. On 4 January 2021, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate's decision with the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "AAT") (CB 50-56). In that application, the applicant indicated that correspondence should be directed to him as the "review applicant" and again provided the applicant's first nominated email address (being the same email address as he had provided to the Department) (CB 53-54). He also included a mobile phone number and a postal address in Western Australia in his application to the AAT (CB 53).
8. On 5 January 2021, the AAT wrote to the applicant (by email sent to the applicant's first nominated email address) acknowledging receipt of his review application (CB 57-59).
9. On 7 December 2022, the applicant wrote to the AAT (by email) and provided a completed "Change of Contact Details" form (CB 60-62). In that form, the applicant provided a new email address (the "applicant's second nominated email address") (CB 61-62).
10. On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal (the "Tribunal") commenced (by virtue of s 8 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the "ART Act")) and the AAT was abolished (by virtue of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the "Transitional Act")). Item 24 in Schedule 16 of the Transitional Act provided that any proceeding in the AAT that was not finalised before the transition time must be continued and finalised by the Tribunal in a manner the Tribunal considers efficient and fair. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to review the applicant's merits review application in this case.
11. On 6 February 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant (by email sent to the applicant's second nominated email address) and invited him to complete a "pre-hearing information form" (the "questionnaire"). He was also given a link that enabled him to access that questionnaire (CB 70).
12. On 12 February 2025, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of his completed questionnaire (by email sent from the applicant's second nominated email address to the Tribunal) (CB 71-75).
13. On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal notified the applicant of a hearing before it scheduled for 8 April 2025 at the Tribunal's Brisbane Registry in person (CB 76-79). That notice outlined what would happen if the applicant did not appear at the Tribunal hearing and, relevantly, provided as follows (CB 78):

What will happen if you don't appear

If you do not appear at the scheduled hearing, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable you to appear before us or may dismiss your application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before us. Not appearing at the scheduled hearing means:

• if you were invited to appear at an ART office (including by video from an ART office), you do not attend the ART office at the scheduled time;

1. On 20 March 2025, the Tribunal sent an email to the applicant (at the applicant's second nominated email address) advising him of the notice to appear at a Tribunal hearing on 8 April 2025 and asking him to complete and return a "Response to hearing notice form" as soon as possible (CB 80).
2. The applicant did not attend the Tribunal hearing scheduled on 8 April 2025 (CB 82-84).
3. On 9 April 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the application for non-appearance pursuant to s 99 of the ART Act (the "Dismissal Decision") (CB 88-89). The applicant was notified of that decision and advised of his right to apply for reinstatement by letter sent to him on 10 April 2025 (via email sent to the applicant's second nominated email address) (CB 85-87). That letter stated (CB 86):

On 12 March 2025 we sent a letter notifying you of your hearing scheduled on 08 April 2025. As you failed to attend the scheduled hearing, we have decided to dismiss your application for review.

A copy of our statement of decision to dismiss the application is attached.

You may apply to us, in writing, for reinstatement of the application by 08 May 2025. In a reinstatement application you should set out why you failed to appear at the hearing and provide any other information you want the Tribunal to take into consideration when deciding whether your reinstatement application should be granted.

On receiving an application for reinstatement, we may reinstate the application for review if we consider it appropriate to do so. I f we do, the application is taken never to have been dismissed and we will continue to conduct the review accordingly.

If we decide not to reinstate the application, or if you fail to apply for reinstatement by 08 May 2025, we must confirm the decision to dismiss the application.

1. The applicant did not seek reinstatement (CB 93 at [4]).
2. On 12 May 2025, the Tribunal confirmed the Dismissal Decision made on 9 April 2025 (the "Confirmation Decision") (CB 92-93).
3. On 3 June 2025, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's Confirmation Decision. That application was made pursuant to s 476 of the Act.
4. On 19 June 2025, a response was filed on behalf of the Minister. In that response, the Minister sought an order dismissing the applicant's judicial review application (the "Summary Dismissal Application") pursuant to r 13.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (the "2021 FCFCOA Rules") (as were in force at the time).
5. On 27 January 2026, the applicant and Mr Benjamin Mayne ("Mr Mayne"), solicitor for the Minister, appeared before a Judicial Registrar of this Court for the hearing of the Minister's Summary Dismissal Application.
6. On that same date (being on 27 January 2026), a Judicial Registrar of this Court summarily dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of the Tribunal's Confirmation Decision (the "Registrar's decision"). The Registrar did so on the basis that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting his application for judicial review and pursuant to r 23.08 of the 2 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (the "2025 FCFCOA Rules") (being the equivalent provision of r 13.13 of the 2021 FCFCOA Rules found in the 2025 FCFCOA Rules that came into effect on 1 September 2025 and were thus in force at the time of the Registrar's decision).
7. On 13 February 2026, the applicant lodged an application for review of the Registrar's decision with this Court (the Registrar Review Application).
8. This judgment addresses the Registrar Review Application. For the reasons that follow, the Court has determined that the applicant's Registrar Review Application ought to be dismissed.

HEARING OF THE REGISTRAR REVIEW APPLICATION DECISION

1. As outlined above, the applicant filed the Registrar Review Application in this Court on 13 February 2026.
2. On 16 February 2026, procedural orders were made by this Court allowing the parties time to file written submissions and any further evidence in support of their respective cases.
3. Unfortunately, no further materials were filed by or on behalf of the applicant.
4. On 3 March 2025, written submissions were filed on behalf of the Minister.
5. The materials before the Court include the application for judicial review and supporting affidavit filed by the applicant on 3 June 2025 (the applicant's affidavit being taken as read and in evidence at the hearing of the Registrar Review Application on 12 March 2026), the Summary Dismissal Application filed on behalf of the Minister on 19 June 2026, a CB numbering 93 pages (marked as Exhibit 1 and the hearing) and written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 3 March 2026.
6. The applicant appeared before this Court for a hearing of the Registrar Review Application (on 12 March 2026) without legal representation. He was assisted at the hearing by a Hindi interpreter. The Court confirmed with the applicant that he had received copies of the CB and the Minister's written submissions.

Relevant legislative provisions and legal principles

1. Before considering the Registrar Review Application, it is useful to set out the relevant legislative provisions and applicable legal principles in this matter.
2. The Judges of this Court may delegate certain powers to Registrars of this Court pursuant to s 254 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (the "FCFCOA Act") and r 3.01(1) of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules.
3. Of particular relevance in this matter is Item 163 in Table 1 of Schedule 1 of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules which delegates the power to a Registrar under r 23.08(1) of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules to "give summary judgment for a party" if the Registrar is satisfied that "the applicant has no reasonable prospect of prosecuting the proceeding or part of the proceeding": r 23.08(1)(a) of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules.
4. Rule 3.05(1) of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules and s 256(1) of the FCFCOA Act provide that a party to a proceeding in which a delegate has exercised any of the powers under s 254 the FCFCOA Act may apply to the Court for review of that exercise of power. The application for review must be made within 21 days after the day on which the power is exercised: s 256(2) of the FCFCOA Act and r 3.06 of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules. Upon receipt of such an application, the Court may make any order it deems fit in relation to the matter in respect of which the power was exercised: s 256(2) of the FCFCOA Act.
5. The question of whether an application for judicial review ought be summarily dismissed must be considered on a de novo basis: r 3.08(1) of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules.
6. The Court also notes the comments made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Bechara v Bates [2021] FCAFC 34 in this regard, as follows:
   1. The nature of a review ... of an order made by a registrar ... has been the subject of a significant number of decisions of this Court. All are consistent. To underpin the validity of the delegation of judicial power of the Commonwealth to a non-judicial court officer there must be a rehearing de novo before a judge of the Court (whether Circuit Court or Federal Court). The review does not hinge, or focus, upon error in the decision of the registrar. It is a hearing de novo, in which the matter is considered afresh on the evidence and on the law at the time of the review, that is at the time of the hearing de novo. The importance of the de novo rehearing is Constitutional, being the supervisory condition that enables judicial power to be delegated to a registrar. All the jurisprudence stems from this requirement marked out by the High Court in the landmark decision in 1991 of Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; 172 CLR 84, which is discussed in many of the cases referred to below.
7. Hence, this Court will not consider whether there was any error in the Registrar's decision. The Court will, instead, consider the Minister's Summary Dismissal Application again. The Court can also take into account any evidence or documents that it deems are required: AHH22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 426 at [25].
8. The power to grant summary judgment for one party against another is provided for in s 143 of the FCFCOA Act which provides as follows:

(1) The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:

(a) the first party is prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and

(b) the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.

(2) The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:

(a) the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and

(b) the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be:

(a) hopeless; or

(b) bound to fail;

for it to have no reasonable prospect of success.

1. Rule 23.08(1)(a) of the 2025 FCFCOA Rules also relevantly provides as follows:

(1) The Court may order that judgment be given against a party if the Court is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or part of the proceeding; or

1. The principles regarding summary judgment are well established and were usefully summarised in the Minister's written submissions before this Court. Those principles are:

(a) the applicant on an application for summary judgment bears the onus of persuading the Court that the substantive application has no reasonable prospect of success: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2013] FCA 641 at [45];

(b) the power to give summary judgment is not concerned with mere pleading points, but is instead concerned with substance: Singh v Owners Strata Plan No 11723 (No 3) [2012] FCA 1121, citing Wills v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2009] FCAFC 6; (2009) 173 FCR 284 at [43]- [45];

(c) whilst a claim need not be "hopeless" or "bound to fail" for it to have no reasonable prospect of success (as set out in s 143(3) of the FCFCOA Act), the discretion must still be exercised with caution: Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28 at [60]; and

(d) an assessment of whether a proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success involves the making of value judgments in the absence of a full and complex factual matrix and argument, with the result that the provisions vest a discretion in the Court: Kowalski v MMAL Staff Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 117 at [28].

Whether the application for judicial review has "any reasonable prospect of success"

1. The applicant's judicial review application contains three "grounds of review", as follows:
   1. The Tribunal's decision is vitiated by jurisdictional error because the Tribunal misconstrued the risk and fear of significant harm as set out in s.36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958.
   2. The Tribunal decision is vitiated by jurisdiction error by virtue of the Tribunal acting unreasonable or irrationally, or by overlooking relevant evidence.
   3. The Tribunal's decision vitiated by jurisdictional error because the Tribunal failed to consider a component integer of claim.
2. Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave him an opportunity to elaborate on his substantive "grounds of review" (set out in his application for judicial review filed by him on 3 June 2025) and to outline any other concerns that he might have in relation to the Tribunal's decisions. This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 at [8] and BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384.
3. To assist the applicant, the Court explained to him that the only issue before the Court was whether the applicant's judicial review application had "any reasonable prospect of success" in identifying that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error. It was stressed that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. However, for migration decisions of this sort, they most commonly include, but are not limited to, the following categories:

(a) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 ("Craig") at 198;

(b) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;

(c) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;

(d) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]- [208];

(e) where the decision-maker fails to consider the entirety of an applicant's claims (or integers of the claims) made: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZKRT [2013] FCA 317 at [111];

(f) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and

(g) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [33]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].

1. It was also explained that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decisions or grant the applicant the visa that he seeks: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.
2. Against this background, the applicant told the Court that the Tribunal "sent an email ... which [he] did not see" and that his "only request is that [he] should be heard again".
3. The applicant's comments will be addressed by the Court below.

1. To properly determine whether the applicant's judicial review application has "any reasonable prospect of success", it is useful to first set out the Tribunal's decisions.

1. In full, the Dismissal Decision dated 9 April 2025 provides as follows (CB 89):

Dismissal decision

1. On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
2. The review applicant was notified to appear before the Tribunal on 8 April 2025 at 11.30am at its Brisbane registry. The hearing notice stated that if they did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before it. The Tribunal also sent SMS reminders about the hearing 5 business days and one business day before the scheduled hearing.
3. The review applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the scheduled time and place. Having reviewed the Tribunal file, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was properly invited to a hearing in accordance with s 379A(5) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal is satisfied that the notice was sent to the last email supplied by the recipient in connection with the review, and the notice has not been returned to sender. The applicant lodged his application for review on 4 January 2021 and informed the AAT of a change in his email address on 13 December 2022. On the same day, the applicant requested the Tribunal provide him with a letter for the purposes of accessing Medicare.
4. The Tribunal is also satisfied that two separate SMS reminders were also sent to the review applicant about the hearing.
5. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the hearing.
6. The applicant has not contacted the Tribunal to provide a reason or explanation for his nonattendance at the scheduled hearing. Further, I note that since lodging his application for review in 2021, the applicant has not provided any further information, submissions or evidence in support of his review application. Nor did the applicant reply to the Tribunal's pre-hearing information form sent to him on 6 February 2025. The applicant's failure to engage with the Tribunal since 2022 suggests he has disengaged from the review process.
7. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers it reasonable to dismiss the application without further consideration of that application or the information before the Tribunal.

1. In full, the Confirmation Decision dated 12 May 2025 provides as follows (CB 93):

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 9 December 2020 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. On 9 April 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the application under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) as the review applicant did not appear before it at the time and date of the scheduled hearing.

3. The review applicant was notified of the dismissal decision and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision, in accordance with s 368B(5). The review applicant was advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 28 days of receiving the dismissal statement and that a failure to apply for reinstatement within the 28 days period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.

4. As the review applicant did not apply for reinstatement of the application within the 28 days period, the Tribunal must confirm the decision to dismiss the application. In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

DECISION

5. The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

The applicant's oral submissions to this Court

1. As outlined above, in oral submissions before this Court the applicant claimed that the Tribunal "sent an email ... which [he] did not see" and asked that he be allowed to be "heard again".
2. To the extent that the applicant might suggest that he did not receive the Tribunal's notice of the Tribunal hearing or that he was not properly notified of the Tribunal hearing, the Court disagrees.
3. When the Tribunal schedules an event, including a hearing, the Tribunal must give an applicant "written notice ... of the date, time and place" of that event or hearing: s 72(1) of the ART Act.
4. Here, the Tribunal notified the applicant of a hearing before it by letter dated 12 March 2025 (CB 77-79). That letter advised the applicant that the hearing was scheduled to take place on 8 April 2025 at 11.30am (QLD time) at the Tribunal's Brisbane Registry (CB 77). Hence, the Tribunal's notice met the requirements set out in s 72(1) of the ART Act.
5. The Tribunal's notice also outlined what would happen if the applicant did not appear at that Tribunal hearing and, relevantly, stated (CB 78):

What will happen if you don't appear

If you do not appear at the scheduled hearing, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable you to appear before us or may dismiss your application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before us. Not appearing at the scheduled hearing means:

• if you were invited to appear at an ART office (including by video from an ART office), you do not attend the ART office at the scheduled time;

1. The Tribunal's notice was sent to the applicant by email (a method approved by s 379A(5) of the Act) to the applicant's second nominated email address (CB 76-77).
2. Where a document has been sent to an applicant by one of the methods specified in s 379A of the Act (as was the case in this matter - where the invitation was sent to the applicant via email), the applicant is "taken to have received that document" at the time specified in s 379C of the Act (in this case, at the end of the day it was transmitted: s 379C(5) of the Act), regardless of whether the document was actually received: SZNZL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 621 at [36] (in relation to s 441C of a previous iteration of the Act in largely identical terms).
3. Whilst the applicant states that he had "missed" the Tribunal's email, this does not mean that he was not "properly notified" of the Tribunal hearing. Instead, the applicant is taken to have received the Tribunal's hearing notice at the end of the day on 12 March 2025 (being the day it was transmitted to him by email sent to his second nominated email address) (CB 76-77).
4. The Court notes that, pursuant to s 99 of the ART Act, the Tribunal may dismiss an application if an applicant does not appear at a Tribunal case event (including a Tribunal hearing) and the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant received appropriate notice of the date and time of that hearing: ss 99(a) and 99(b) of the ART Act.
5. Here, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled Tribunal hearing (CB 82-84) and the Tribunal confirmed in its Dismissal Decision that it was satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the Tribunal hearing (CB 89 at [3] & [5]).
6. In those circumstances, the Tribunal was legislatively empowered to dismiss the applicant's review application: s 99 of the ART Act.
7. This issue does not have a reasonable prospect of successfully establishing jurisdictional error.
8. The Court will consider whether the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application was made reasonably below.

1. The applicant's judicial review application contains three "grounds of review" as follows:
   1. The Tribunal's decision is vitiated by jurisdictional error because the Tribunal misconstrued the risk and fear of significant harm as set out in s.36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958.
   2. The Tribunal decision is vitiated by jurisdiction error by virtue of the Tribunal acting unreasonable or irrationally, or by overlooking relevant evidence.
   3. The Tribunal's decision vitiated by jurisdictional error because the Tribunal failed to consider a component integer of claim.
2. As correctly submitted by the Minister (in written submissions filed in this Court on 3 March 2026), the applicant's grounds of review all mistakenly take issue with the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's protection claims.
3. As outlined by the Court (above), the Tribunal did not make any assessment of the applicant's claims as it exercised its discretion to dismiss the applicant's review application (pursuant to s 99 of the ART Act) when the applicant failed to appear at a hearing before the Tribunal on 8 April 2025.
4. The Court notes that the Tribunal was not obliged to consider the merits of the applicant's underlying protection visa application within the context of its exercise of discretion under s 99 of the ART Act: see AGK25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1402 at [41].
5. For completeness, however, the Court will consider whether the Tribunal's decision to exercise its discretionary power under s 99 of the ART Act was made reasonably.
6. Within the context of this matter, the Court is satisfied that the Tribunal's actions were reasonable. Relevantly:

(a) the applicant had provided updated contact details to the Tribunal (including providing the Tribunal with the second nominated email address) on 12 December 2022 (CB 66-67);

(b) the applicant confirmed that the second nominated email address was still his current email address in the completed questionnaire returned to the Tribunal on 12 February 2025. He also provided the Tribunal with an updated mobile phone number in that questionnaire (CB 72);

(c) as outlined by the Court above, the Tribunal's hearing notice complied with the requirements set out in s 72 of the ART Act by providing the applicant with the date, time and place of the scheduled Tribunal hearing (CB 77);

(d) that Tribunal notice was properly sent to the applicant by email to his second nominated email address (as allowed by s 379A(5)(b) of the Act) on 12 March 2025 (CB 77) and the applicant was taken to have received that notice at the end of the day on 12 March 2025;

(e) the Tribunal's notice also informed the applicant that if he did not appear at the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal "may dismiss [the] application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before [it]" (CB 78);

(f) the Tribunal contacted the applicant again on 20 March 2025 (by email sent to his second nominated email address) confirming that a notice to attend a hearing scheduled for 8 April 2025 had been sent to him and requesting that the applicant provide a completed "Response to hearing notice" form (CB 80);

(g) the Tribunal sent an SMS hearing reminder message to the applicant at or around 11.06am on 1 April 2024 (using the new mobile number provided by the applicant to the Tribunal on 12 February 2025) (CB 72 & 81);

(h) the Tribunal sent a further SMS hearing reminder message to the applicant at or around 11.09am on 7 April 2025 (again using the new mobile number provided by him) (CB 81);

(i) the applicant failed to appear at the Tribunal hearing at the scheduled time of 11.30am (QLD time) (on 8 April 2025) (CB 82-84); and

(j) the Tribunal waited until 9.32am on 9 April 2025 (being the following morning) before making its Dismissal Decision (CB 88).

1. On the basis of the above, the Court is satisfied that the Tribunal acted reasonably in dismissing the applicant's review application pursuant to s 99 of the ART Act.
2. The Court also notes that the applicant was subsequently notified of the Tribunal's Dismissal Decision (by email sent to the applicant's second nominated email address) on 10 April 2025 (being within 14 days of the decision being made as required by ss 368B(2) and s 368B(5)(a) of the Act) (CB 85-87).
3. That notification letter informed the applicant that he could apply to have his application reinstated. In particular, the notification letter stated (CB 86):

You may apply to us, in writing, for reinstatement of the application by 08 May 2025. In a reinstatement application you should set out why you failed to appear at the hearing and provide any other information you want the Tribunal to take into consideration when deciding whether your reinstatement application should be granted.

On receiving an application for reinstatement, we may reinstate the application for review if we consider it appropriate to do so. I f we do, the application is taken never to have been dismissed and we will continue to conduct the review accordingly.

If we decide not to reinstate the application, or if you fail to apply for reinstatement by 08 May 2025, we must confirm the decision to dismiss the application.

If we confirm the decision to dismiss the application, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed. The effect of this is that the decision of the Department of Home Affairs remains in force.

1. The applicant did not seek reinstatement (either before 8 May 2025 or at all) (CB 93 at [3]). In those circumstances, the Tribunal was required to confirm its Dismissal Decision and did so (by way of its Confirmation Decision) (CB 92-93).
2. The applicant's grounds of review do not have any reasonable prospect of successfully establishing jurisdictional error.

1. For the reasons set out above, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's judicial review application (filed in this Court on 3 June 2025) lacks any reasonable prospect of success.
2. The Registrar Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed.

I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kendall.