LFO25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

1. On 15 January 2026, the applicant lodged, pursuant to r 3.05 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules), an application for review of a decision of a registrar of this Court dated 19 December 2025 (Registrar Review Application) published as LFO25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2135 (Registrar Decision). The Registrar summarily dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 3 September 2025.
2. The Registrar Review Application was listed for hearing before me on 30 January 2026. For the reasons explained below, I dismiss the Registrar Review Application.

1. On 20 September 2019, the applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a subclass 866 protection visa.
2. On 30 November 2020, a delegate of the first respondent made a decision refusing to grant the applicant a protection visa.
3. On 6 December 2020, the applicant applied to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the delegate's decision.
4. In October 2024, the AAT was abolished and replaced by the Tribunal.
5. On 11 July 2025, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant inviting him to attend a directions hearing on 29 July 2025 by telephone.
6. On 29 July 2025, the applicant did not appear at the listing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal attempted to phone the applicant three times over a 20 minute period, but the applicant did not answer the phone.
7. On 29 July 2025, the Tribunal made a decision under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) dismissing the application (Dismissal Decision).
8. On 29 July 2025, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant attaching the Dismissal Decision and providing information concerning the ability of the applicant to apply for reinstatement of the application within the prescribed period of 28 days.
9. On 26 August 2025, the applicant sent the Tribunal an email which stated:

Dear Sir/Madam

My name is [LFO25]. Please reinstate my application.

Kind regards

1. On 3 September 2025, the Tribunal, after considering the reinstatement application, made a decision confirming the Dismissal Decision under s 368C(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) (Confirmation Decision).

Judicial review application by applicant and summary dismissal application by first respondent

1. On 22 September 2025, the applicant filed an application with the Court, under s 476 of the Act, seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's decisions (Originating Application). The grounds in the application were (as written):
   1. I requested that my case be reinstated within the allocated 28 days time, but AAT denied my request.
   2. I have real problem in my home town. I cannot go back.
2. On 6 November 2025, the first respondent filed a response which sought an order that the proceeding be summarily dismissed pursuant to r 23.08 of the Rules.
3. On 7 November 2025, the matter was listed for directions. The applicant appeared by telephone with the assistance of a Hindi interpreter. The Court listed the matter for a summary dismissal hearing on 19 December 2025 and made procedural orders concerning the filing and service of submissions and other materials by the parties leading up to the hearing.
4. Prior to the summary dismissal hearing, the applicant did not file any further materials.
5. On 19 December 2025, the summary dismissal hearing proceeded before a Registrar of the Court. The applicant appeared by audio visual link, assisted by a Hindi interpreter. Following the hearing, and on the same day, the Registrar made the Registrar Decision in which he ordered that the Originating Application be summarily dismissed pursuant to r 23.08(1)(a) of the Rules.

1. On 15 January 2026, the applicant lodged the Registrar Review Application pursuant to r 3.05 of the Rules. The orders sought by the applicant were (as written):
   1. Order made by the Federal circuit court of Australia on 19 December 2025 to set aside.
   2. Order made by the ART on 03 September 2025 to be set asides.
   3. Order that matter be remitted to ART to be dealt with according to Law.
   4. Applicant is allowed to remain in Australia until decision of the Hon. Court.
2. On 20 January 2026, the Court made the following orders:
   1. The application for review lodged by the applicant on 15 January 2026, including any application for an extension of time under rule 3.06 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025, is listed for hearing at 10 am on Friday 30 January 2026 before Judge Zipser.
   2. The applicant shall file and serve a written submission and any evidence in support of the application for review, and any application for an extension of time, by 2 pm on Friday 23 January 2026.
   3. If the applicant files and serves any materials, the first respondent may file and serve a written submission or evidence in reply by 12 pm on Thursday 29 January 2026.
3. On the same day, the Court emailed the orders to the parties and provided details of the hearing date and place in the covering email.
4. The applicant did not file any further materials before the hearing of the Registrar Review Application on 30 January 2026.

1. At the hearing of the Registrar Review Application before me on 30 January 2026, the applicant appeared unrepresented, assisted by a Hindi interpreter. Sebastian Long of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers appeared for the first respondent.
2. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court ensured the applicant had a copy of a Court Book, filed by the first respondent in November 2025, which contained the Tribunal's two decisions and documents before the Tribunal. I directed the applicant's attention to the Tribunal's decisions. I explained to the applicant that, if he wants to win the court proceeding, he must identify a jurisdictional error, which I described as a significant mistake or error, in one or both of the Tribunal's decisions.
3. Mr Long tendered the Court Book (CB).
4. I invited the applicant to make oral submissions. He stated that, when the Tribunal phoned him (presumably for the directions hearing on 29 July 2025 - see CB 90, 97) he was in the shower and could not answer the phone. He also stated that the family of his girlfriend in India wanted to kill him and he came to Australia to seek protection.
5. I reminded the applicant to focus on whether there is an error or mistake in, or in relation to, the Dismissal Decision or the Confirmation Decision. I directed the applicant's attention to the Dismissal Decision and asked whether there was an error or mistake in the decision. The applicant replied that there is no mistake in the decision. I then directed the applicant's attention to the Confirmation Decision and asked whether there was an error or mistake in the decision. The applicant replied that there is no mistake in the decision.
6. I reminded the applicant that, if there is no mistake in relation to either decision of the Tribunal, the Court must dismiss the Registrar Review Application. I then invited the applicant to withdraw the Registrar Review Application. The applicant replied that he did not want to withdraw the application.
7. Mr Long then made oral submissions.

1. The Tribunal made the Dismissal Decision under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) which provides:

Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant does not appear

If:

(a) the applicant fails to appear at a Tribunal case event that relates to a proceeding in relation to an application; and

(b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event;

1. The Tribunal made the Confirmation Decision under s 368C(3)(b) of the Act. Section 368C relevantly provides:

Reinstatement of application or confirmation of dismissal

(1) This section, instead of section 102 of the ART Act, applies if the ART dismisses an application for review of a reviewable migration decision or a reviewable protection decision.

(2) If the dismissal is made under one of the following provisions of the ART Act, the applicant may, within 28 days after receiving notice of the decision under subsection 368B(5), apply to the ART for reinstatement of the application:

(a) section 99 (Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant does not appear); ...

(3) On application for reinstatement in accordance with subsection (2), the ART must:

(a) if it considers it appropriate to do so--reinstate the application by written statement under 368B; or

(b) confirm the decision to dismiss the application, by written statement under section 368.

1. This hearing involves consideration of the first respondent's application to summarily dismiss the Originating Application. Rule 23.08(1)(a) of the Rules states:

(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

(b) ...

1. Aided by s 143 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act), Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; 241 CLR 118 (Spencer) and Przyblowski v Australian Human Rights Commission (No 2) [2018] FCA 473 (Przyblowski) at [6]-[7], some principles concerning the test for summary dismissal are:

(a) The respondent as the moving party bears the onus of persuading the court that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

(b) A proceeding "need not be hopeless or bound to fail for it to have no reasonable prospect of success": s 143(3) of FCFCOA Act.

(c) The provision "will apply to the case in which the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action and their deficiency is incurable": Spencer at [22].

(d) The "exercise of powers to summarily terminate proceedings must always be attended with caution": Spencer at [24].

(e) An "assessment of whether a proceeding has no reasonable prospects of success ... involves the making of value judgments in the absence of a full and complete factual matrix and argument, with the result that the provision vests a discretion in the Court": Przyblowski at [7(4)].

(f) The "determination of a summary dismissal application ... requires a critical examination of the available materials to determine whether there is a real question of law or fact that should be decided at trial": Przyblowski at [7(5)].

1. In considering whether any deficiency in the applicant's pleadings in the present matter was "incurable" (Spencer at [22]), it is relevant that the applicant had a number of opportunities to file an amended application, but did not do so.
2. This hearing also involves consideration of the applicant's Registrar Review Application. Section 256(1) and (2) of the FCFCOA Act provides:

(1) A party to proceedings in which a delegate has exercised any of the powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) under section 254 may:

(a) within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court; or

(b) within any further time allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court;

apply to the Court for review of that exercise of power.

(2) The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may, on application under subsection (1) or on its own initiative, review an exercise of power by a delegate under section 254, and may make any order or orders it thinks fit in relation to the matter in respect of which the power was exercised.

1. Rule 3.05(1) of the Rules states that a "party may apply to the Court under subsection 256(1) of the Act for review of the exercise of a power of the Court by a Registrar". Rule 3.06(1) states that the application for review "must be made within 21 days after the day on which the power is exercised". Rule 3.08 states that the review "must proceed by way of a hearing de novo".

1. Rule 3.06(1) of the Rules states that an application for review of the exercise of a power of the Court by a Registrar "must be made within 21 days after the day on which the power is exercised". The applicant lodged the Registrar Review Application more than 21 days after the Registrar Decision. However, as pointed out by Mr Long at the hearing of the Registrar Review Application on 30 January 2026, rule 1.22(5) of the Rules provides that "if the time fixed includes a day in the period starting on 24 December in a year and ending on 14 January in the next year, the day is not to be counted". On application of this rule, the applicant lodged the Registrar Review Application within time.

1. The grounds in the Originating Application do not identify, or provide particulars which endeavour to identify, a jurisdictional error in the Dismissal Decision or the Confirmation Decision. Just as a "failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it" (NWWJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 176 at [37]), a failure to particularise a ground of review, after being provided with multiple opportunities to do so, supports a conclusion that "the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding": r 23.08(1)(a) of the Rules.

Matters raised by applicant at hearing on 30 January 2026

1. At the hearing on 30 January 2026, the applicant accepted there is no error in either the Dismissal Decision or the Confirmation Decision. The concession supports a conclusion that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding.

1. In light of the potentially serious consequences for the applicant if there is a jurisdictional error in one of the Tribunal's decisions and the fact he has not obtained legal assistance for his judicial review application, on application of the approach in Gomez v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 105; (2002) 190 ALR 543 at [23], "I have scrutinised the papers and the Tribunal's reasons to see whether there was reviewable error" to the extent of "a mistake [which] clearly appears in the Tribunal's reasons".
2. In relation to the Dismissal Decision, since:

(a) the Tribunal was "satisfied that the applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event" (s 99(b)); and

(b) the applicant, as he accepted at the hearing before me, "fail[ed] to appear at [the] Tribunal case event" (s 99(a)),

there is no error in the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application to the Tribunal.

1. In relation to the Confirmation Decision, the Registrar stated in the Registrar Review Decision at [8]-[9]:

[8] Turning now to the applicant's case, and as was required by Kumar and Singh 2025, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had given a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear at the hearing. Unsurprisingly, it concluded that he had not given such an explanation (CB 110, [6]). His failure to do so needs to be seen in the context of the Tribunal asking him for that explanation twice (CB 101, 106). As Derrington J said in Singh 2025 at [45], it is difficult to think of circumstances in which a Tribunal application would be reinstated in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the applicant's non-appearance at the Tribunal hearing.

[9] The Tribunal also said that it appeared the applicant was not genuinely engaging with the Tribunal and its processes (CB 110, [6]), and that finding was clearly open to the Tribunal given the applicant had not engaged with the Tribunal at all since he lodged his review application roughly five years prior to the making of the dismissal decision. It was permissible for the Tribunal to bring that matter to account in its decision (FNV17 at [37] per Nicholas J). The applicant's lack of engagement in the Tribunal review process prior to the making of the dismissal decision distinguishes this matter from cases such as Sran v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 377 and Bobbala v Minster for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1788 and instead makes it more akin to Singh 2018 (see the reasoning to similar effect in Bobbala at [48]-[49] per Judge Cleary).

1. I agree with the Registrar's analysis and findings.
2. It follows from the above that I am satisfied that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of establishing that either the Dismissal Decision or Confirmation Decision were vitiated by jurisdictional error. I also consider it appropriate to exercise the discretion to enter summary judgment against the applicant.
3. For the above reasons, I will dismiss the Registrar Review Application, as a result of which the orders made by the Registrar on 19 December 2025 remain in place: see Bechara v Bates [2021] FCAFC 34; 286 FCR 166 at [1]- [7]; Fang v Lin [2024] FedCFamC2G 747 at [25].

1. At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions from the parties on costs. Mr Long stated that, if the Registrar Review Application is dismissed, the applicant should be ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $1,050. The applicant did not oppose this order. The amount sought by Mr Long is reasonable. I will make this order.

I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.