LGJ25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

1. This is an Application for a review of a Registrar's decision, enlivened by Division 3.2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (the Rules), whereby a Registrar of this Court summarily dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
2. For the following reasons, the Application for a review of a Registrar's decision should be dismissed, and the decision of the Registrar should be confirmed.

1. On 10 July 2017, the applicant, a Chinese citizen, arrived in Australia on a student visa.
2. On 25 March 2019, the applicant applied for a Protection (subclass 866) visa (the visa).
3. On 21 May 2021, a delegate of the Minister (the delegate) requested that the applicant provide more information in relation to his claims for protection pursuant to s 56 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The applicant did not respond to that request.
4. On 30 July 2021, the delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa as they were not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations under ss 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
5. On 26 August 2021, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it was then) (the AAT) for review of the delegate's decision.
6. On 21 September 2022, the applicant emailed the AAT and provided an updated email address (the nominated email address) and phone number (the nominated phone number).
7. On 14 October 2024, the review application was "transferred" to the Tribunal in accordance with item 24 in Schedule 16 of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth).
8. On 10 June 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant at his nominated email address and invited him to complete a pre-hearing information form. The applicant did not respond.
9. On 3 July 2025, the Tribunal notified the applicant of a hearing scheduled on 23 July 2025. That notice complied with all the requirements of s 72 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) and s 374(1) of the Act.
10. On 16 and 22 July 2025, the Tribunal sent the applicant SMS hearing reminders to the nominated phone number.
11. On 23 July 2025, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing. Accordingly, on the same day, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to s 99 of the ART Act (the dismissal decision). The next day, the Tribunal notified the applicant of the dismissal decision by email to his nominated email address and advised him of his right to apply for reinstatement within 28 days.
12. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's email dated 24 July 2025, nor did he seek reinstatement. Accordingly, on 22 August 2025, the Tribunal confirmed the decision to dismiss the application pursuant to s 386C(5) of the Act (the confirmation decision).
13. On 25 September 2025, the applicant filed an application for judicial review of the confirmation decision in this Court.
14. On 18 December 2025, Registrar Cummings made Orders pursuant to s 143(2) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), and r 23.08(1)(a) of the Rules, that there be judgment for the first respondent against the applicant for the whole of the applicant's claim, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

1. On 6 January 2026, the applicant lodged an Application for a review of Registrar Cummings' Orders dated 18 December 2026.
2. The orders sought in the applicant's Review Application are as follows (without alteration):
   1. There be judgment in favor of the applicant.
   2. The applicant's application for judicial review allowed.
   3. The resondents pay the costs.
3. The Application before the Court is determined below.

1. The Tribunal's confirmation decision in this matter comprises one page and five paragraphs.
2. At [1], the Tribunal set out the application for review.
3. The Tribunal noted on 24 July 2025 that it dismissed the application under s 99 of the ART Act as the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal at the scheduled hearing [2].
4. At [3], the Tribunal noted that it notified the applicant of the dismissal decision and provided a copy of the reasons for the dismissal, in accordance with s 368B(5) of the Act. The Tribunal advised the applicant that a reinstatement of the application could be sought within 28 days of receiving the dismissal notice, and that failure to apply for reinstatement within that period would result in confirmation of the dismissal decision.
5. The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to apply for reinstatement of the application within the 28-day period, therefore, the Tribunal was required to confirm the decision to dismiss the application [4].
6. Accordingly, at [5], the Tribunal confirmed the decision to dismiss the application for review.

1. In the Originating Application filed with the Court on 25 September 2025, the applicant advanced three grounds of judicial review. They are as follows (without altercation):
   1. My application is dismissed without proper examination of my evidence.
   2. My application should be reinstated as I was sick and missed the appointment.
   3. I should be allowed another chance to give the details of my application.

1. The applicant appeared before the Court unrepresented. The applicant was assisted by an interpreter. Prior to the hearing commencing, the Court ensured that the applicant was in possession of a copy of the relevant Court Books and that the first respondent's written submissions had been translated to him. The Court also ensured the applicant had access to a pen and paper so he could take notes during the hearing, should he wish to.
2. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court explained that it was undertaking judicial review, not merits review, and the difference between the two types of review. The Court also explained the procedure by which the hearing would be undertaken.
3. Despite Court Orders, no written submissions or other material were provided to the Court by the applicant in support of his case.
4. The applicant confirmed with the Court that he had received the Tribunal's invitation to attend the hearing and two SMS reminders.
5. When asked why he did not attend the Tribunal hearing, the applicant told the Court he was sick. The applicant was asked whether he had contacted the Tribunal to advise it that he was sick, to which he stated, 'No, he asked a friend to do so'.
6. The applicant confirmed with the Court that he had received the Tribunal's initial correspondence advising him that his matter had been dismissed for non-appearance. The applicant confirmed, notwithstanding this, that he did not seek reinstatement of his matter.
7. When asked what legal error there was in the Tribunal's decision, the applicant stated that he was not familiar with the law and was unable to add anything.
8. At the conclusion of the first respondent's oral submissions, the applicant was asked if he wished to state anything in reply. The applicant answered "No".

1. As to Ground One, the Tribunal was not obliged to assess the merits of the applicant's claims when dismissing the application, as s 99 of the ART Act imposes no such requirement: AGK25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1402 (AGK25) at [40]-[41]. Nor was the Tribunal required or permitted to consider those claims when, later, it confirmed the dismissal decision, which it was required to do once the applicant failed to seek reinstatement pursuant to s 368C(5) of the Act: AGK25 at [43] - [45].
2. As to Ground Two, the applicant did not apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the review application, despite being informed in the dismissal decision that he was entitled to do so. The applicant likewise did not inform the Tribunal that his absence from the hearing was due to illness. The Court cannot consider a contention that was never put to the Tribunal, and there was no error in the Tribunal failing to consider reinstatement under s 368C(3) of the Act where no such application was made. Further, the applicant has provided no evidence to substantiate his assertion that he was unwell. Even if such evidence existed, it would not disclose any arguable error on the part of the Tribunal.
3. Ground Three is not a proper ground of review and seeks to engage the Court in impermissible merits review: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shang Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.

1. Pursuant to r 3.08(1) of the Rules, this review of the Registrar's decision was heard de novo, or afresh.
2. First, the Court is satisfied that the Tribunal followed all necessary procedural requirements. The Applicant was properly invited to attend a Tribunal hearing. Additionally, the Tribunal sent the applicant two courtesy SMS reminders.
3. As the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled Tribunal hearing, the Court accepts the first respondent's submissions that there was no requirement for the Tribunal to consider the matter on its merits. Having dismissed the matter for non-appearance, in circumstances where the applicant did not seek a reinstatement, the Tribunal had no choice but to confirm the dismissal. No jurisdictional error is established, and accordingly, Ground One has no merit.
4. Grounds Two and Three are not proper grounds of judicial review as they allege no jurisdictional error.
5. As the applicant is unrepresented, the Court has perused the Court Book and other relevant material and is unable to detect any unarticulated jurisdictional error.

1. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the proceedings have no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court confirms Registrar Cumming's Orders dated 18 December 2025, dismissing the matter pursuant to rule 23.08(1) of the Rules.

I certify that the preceding forty-three (43) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys.