Minhas v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 538

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Review Tribunal on 30 September 2025 (confirmation decision). In that decision, the Tribunal confirmed its decision of 25 August 2025 to dismiss the applicant's application for review (dismissal decision). The dismissal decision was made under s 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) as the applicant did not appear before the Tribunal at the scheduled hearing.
2. The first respondent (the Minister) opposes the application.
3. The Tribunal filed a submitting notice save as to costs.
4. For the reasons that follow, I have decided to dismiss the application for review.

1. From the court book (CB) and affidavit material that was tendered on behalf of the Minister at the hearing of this application, the following background facts can be established.
2. The applicant is an Indian national. He applied for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) class UB (subclass 602) visa on 3 February 2023 (CB 1-14). In an "Evidence of intended medical treatment" form filed in support of his visa application, the applicant listed "lower back pain & loin pain for investigations" as the medical condition requiring treatment (CB 12).
3. On 8 February 2023 the Department of Home Affairs invited the applicant to comment on "unfavourable information that may lead to a decision to refuse your application" (CB 19-22). The letter from the Department stated:

Immigration history

Departmental records show that you have the following immigration history:

You arrived in Australia on a Student visa (TU-572) on the 27 June 2008. You lodged an application for a further Student visa (TU-572) on 27 October 2010 which was refused on 13 May 2011 & you sought review at the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) on 6 June 2011. The review of the Student visa was affirmed by the MRT on 7 April 2014.

Whist in the review process you departed Australia and returned to Australia on two separate occasions as the hold of a Bridging Visa with a travel facility (BVB). You have remained in Australia since 30 January 2013 and have not departed since.

On the 13 May 2014 you lodged an application for a Protection visa (XA-PV) which was refused on 23 September 2014. The associated Bridging visa C ceased 30/10/2014 and you have remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen since 1 November 2014 a period of over 8 years.

You have lodged a current Medical Treatment Visa (UB-602) application on the 3 February 2023

Ties to Australia

• - You have been in Australia for a continuous period of more than 8 years.

• - You have provided information that you:

• - Are in a married to a person who is in Australia.

• - Have maintained an ongoing residence in Australia

Ties to Malaysia

You have not provided any information regarding the strength of your ties to Malaysia, for example, family relationships, financial holdings, and ownership of assets.

In assessing whether you are a genuine visitor, a delegate must decide whether the incentives for you to return to Malaysia outweigh the incentives for you to remain in Australia.

You are invited to provide comment on this information, and to provide documentary evidence to substantiate claims that you genuinely intend to leave Australia at the end of the medical treatment plan.

Timeframe for response

You must respond to this invitation to comment within 7 days after you are taken to have received this letter. You should provide you response in writing.

1. I interpose to note that the references in that letter to "Malaysia" were unexplained. While neither party addressed me on this at the hearing, it is tolerably clear that the references to "Malaysia" ought to have been references to "India". However, no issue before me turns on this.
2. The Department did not receive a response from the applicant to the 8 February 2023 letter.
3. On 8 August 2023 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 23-31). The delegate determined that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of a Medical Treatment visa.
4. On 24 August 2023 the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it then was) for merits review of the delegate's decision (CB 32-37). His application form included his email address and mobile phone number.
5. On 14 October 2024 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal as defined earlier).
6. On 15 May 2025 the Tribunal emailed the applicant to invite him to appear at an in-person hearing on 12 June 2025 (CB 47-58). The Tribunal asked the applicant to, among other things, complete and return a "Response to hearing notice" form within seven days. The letter from the Tribunal included the following statement about what would occur if he did not appear at the hearing:

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;

• - if you were invited to appear by video conference using Microsoft Teams, you do not appear via Microsoft Teams at the scheduled time;

• - if you were invited to appear by video conference at a specified place, you do not attend the place at the scheduled time; or

• - if you were invited to appear by telephone, you do not answer our phone call to you at the scheduled time or you do not call us on the number we provided to you at the scheduled time.

A case dismissed because of non-appearance can be reinstated if the Member considers it appropriate to do so and the application is made within 28 days after receiving notice of the dismissal. If the Member confirms the dismissal, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal's correspondence also included an "Information about hearings" factsheet which relevantly stated:

What if I cannot attend the scheduled hearing?

If you are not able to attend the scheduled hearing, or you would prefer that the hearing take place in a different way (e.g. at an ART office instead of by video or telephone), you must advise us of this as soon as possible. Please note that we will only make changes if we are satisfied that it is reasonable and there are good reasons for doing so. An adjournment sought on the day of the hearing will not be granted unless there are exceptional reasons.

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.

...

If you seek to adjourn your hearing for a medical reason, you must provide a doctor's certificate that states you are not able to attend the scheduled hearing. If you cannot provide a medical certificate you must provide a convincing reason for this. The Member will consider the request and advise you of the outcome. If we do not advise you that an adjournment has been granted, you must assume that the hearing will go ahead.

...

1. The Tribunal sent SMS hearing reminders to the applicant's mobile phone number on 4 and 11 June 2025 (CB 119).
2. The applicant failed to appear at the hearing on 12 June 2025 and the Tribunal decided to dismiss the merits review application under s 99 of the ART Act.
3. On 13 June 2025, the applicant was notified of the dismissal decision (CB 63-67). The letter from the Tribunal stated that the applicant had until 11 July 2025 to apply for reinstatement of the application.
4. On 14 June 2025, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting a reinstatement of his merits review application (CB 68-69). The letter from the applicant stated:

I would like to respectfully explain the circumstances that led to my absence. On that day, my wife and I had a critical and time-sensitive medical appointment for an early pregnancy dating scan, which was essential for confirming and assessing the health of her pregnancy at approximately seven weeks. According to medical guidance, such scans are most accurate during the 6-7 week gestational period.

We had originally booked the appointment for 9:15 AM at New Medical Imaging in Gladstone Park. However, at 6:00 PM on 11 June, we received a message informing us that the appointment had been rescheduled to 10:00 AM. Due to the short notice and the importance of the scan, we had no choice but to proceed with the new time.

After the appointment, while driving home, my wife was involved in a minor car accident in which she lost control of the vehicle and struck a wall. She suffered a jolt to the head, resulting in symptoms such as ear burning and jaw pain. More distressingly, she became extremely anxious and emotionally overwhelmed. She repeatedly asked me, "Is my baby safe?" and became convinced that something might have happened in her womb. Given her history of a previous miscarriage three years ago, this incident caused significant psychological distress. She feared the worst and needed constant reassurance and emotional support.

Our 4-year-old son was also with us at the time. The accident and his mother's visible distress caused him to panic and cry, making the situation even more difficult. My wife was in no condition to care for him or herself, so I had to remain present to support both of them and ensure they received the care they needed.

This unexpected emergency made it impossible for me to attend the hearing or notify the Tribunal in advance.

1. The applicant attached various supporting documents to that letter (CB 70-73).
2. On 20 June 2025, the Tribunal notified the applicant by email of its decision to reinstate his application for merits review (CB 74-76).
3. On 23 June 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant to invite him to appear at an in-person hearing on 27 June 2025 (CB 77-83). The letter from the Tribunal included the statement "What will happen if you don't appear" in the same terms as reproduced above.
4. On 25 June 2025, the applicant telephoned the Tribunal after receiving the notice of the hearing from his representative and stated that he "needed more time" (CB 120). The applicant was informed, among other things, that he needed to write to the Tribunal to request that the hearing be postponed.
5. On the morning of 26 June 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to request a postponement of the hearing on 27 June 2025 (annexure ARH-1 to the affidavit of Ms Alexandra Rawson-Harris affirmed on 23 February 2026). In the email, the applicant stated:

I respectfully request a postponement of the hearing on the grounds that the notice period provided is very short (only 4 days), and I am currently facing personal and family responsibilities that make it difficult for me to attend at such short notice.

My wife is currently pregnant and in her first trimester, and we have a 4-year-old child. We live in Adelaide, and I am the primary carer for both my wife and child, as she is also working in Adelaide. Given these circumstances, it is quite challenging for me to travel to Melbourne at this time.

I kindly request that the hearing be rescheduled to a later date, preferably in August 2025, by which time my wife will have completed her first trimester, and I will be in a better position to attend the hearing in person.

1. On the same day, after receiving the applicant's email, a representative of the Tribunal telephoned the applicant. The case note from the phone call records the following (CB 120):

Spoke to the applicant, confirmed ID - his DOB and mobile on file, the email address diamondpunjabi@gmail.com differed to aus@visaxx.com email address on file.

I said we had received his request for a postponement of the hearing on 27 June 2025.

I called to ask 1) if he would be okay with a video hearing. 2) confirm his contact details and 3) clarify whether or not he has a rep.

The applicant said he did not want a video hearing, he preferred an in person hearing so he could understanding and clearly talk. He also confirmed his email address is diamondpunjabi@gmail.com, which he used to send the postponement request, and that he has a representative.

I replied that I will change our records to reflect his current email address diamondpunjabi@gmail.com, and for future reference to please notify the Tribunal of changes to contact details by completing and submitting the Change of details form on our website. And to complete and submit the appointment of representative form available on the website so we can update our records. He said he did not realise the Tribunal should be notified. he asked if the form is on the website. I replied it is but that I will send him the link to the form via email. I asked if he had any questions. he said no and the call ended

1. That afternoon the applicant provided a "Change of Contact Details" form in which he notified the Tribunal of a new email address for communications relating to his application. The applicant's mobile phone number remained the same (CB 85-86).
2. That evening the Tribunal notified the applicant that it had agreed to postpone the hearing (CB 88).
3. On 27 June 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant to invite him to appear at an in-person hearing on 4 August 2025 (CB 89-94).
4. On 1 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to request a postponement of the hearing on 4 August 2025 (CB 95-101). The email from the applicant stated:

As previously mentioned, my wife, Navreet Kaur Yadav, experienced a miscarriage that was confirmed on 22 July 2025during a 13-week ultrasound at Royal Women's Hospital. The scan showed no fetal heartbeat, and it was determined that the embryo's development had ceased at 7 weeks and 6 days. Based on urgent medical advice, she underwent surgical intervention on 30 July 2025.

Following the procedure, my wife has been placed on complete bed rest and is continuing to experience post-surgical complications, which require close monitoring and ongoing care. She is in a fragile physical and emotional state due to the loss and recovery process.

I am her primary carer, and we also have a 4-year-old child who needs full-time attention. We have no family or external support here in Australia. As a result, I am fully responsible for managing their care and wellbeing during this extremely challenging time.

This situation has placed significant emotional and physical strain on our family. My wife, in particular, is going through emotional trauma as a grieving mother, while also coping with the physical recovery and complications after surgery.

I have attached the carer certificate, medical documents from Royal Women's Hospital, and all relevant paperwork to support this request.

I respectfully ask the Tribunal to grant an adjournment and reschedule the hearing to a later date, once I am able to attend and participate appropriately in the proceedings.

1. The applicant's email attached a discharge summary (CB 96-98) and medical certificate (CB 99) from the Royal Women's Hospital.
2. Later that day the Tribunal notified the applicant that it had agreed to postpone the hearing (CB 102).
3. On 4 August 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant to invite him to appear at an in-person hearing on 22 August 2025 (CB 103-18).
4. The Tribunal sent SMS hearing reminders about the hearing to the applicant's mobile phone number on 15 and 21 August 2025 (CB 121).
5. On 21 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to request that he be permitted to attend the hearing on 22 August 2025 by telephone (CB 109). That email stated:

I respectfully request that my hearing be conducted by telephone instead of in person at the Tribunal office. This arrangement would make it easier for me to attend and ensure that I am able to fully participate in the process.

Please confirm if this change can be made.

1. On the same date, the Tribunal agreed to the request and sent a letter to the applicant confirming the change of hearing modality (CB 110-116).
2. At 9.09am on 22 August 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to request a postponement of the hearing that day (CB 117). The email from the applicant stated:

Unfortunately, I am unwell and unable to attend the hearing. Although the hearing was changed to telephone, my throat condition prevents me from being able to speak properly. I sincerely apologise for the late notice.

I respectfully request that my hearing be postponed for a few more weeks so that I can properly participate. If possible, I ask that the Tribunal consider rescheduling my matter to October 2025, when my health improves and my family will be present from overseas to support me.

1. At 9.27am on 22 August 2025, the Tribunal emailed the applicant to inform him that the Tribunal Member had denied his request to postpone the hearing scheduled that day (CB 118). The email from the Tribunal stated that "[t]he hearing will therefore proceed as scheduled".
2. The Tribunal made four attempts to call the applicant on his mobile phone number between 10.15am and 10.45am on 22 August 2025, with no answer. The hearing commenced at the scheduled hearing time of 10.30am. The applicant did not appear and at 10.45am the presiding Member declared a "no show" (CB 122).
3. On 26 August 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to inform him of its decision to dismiss his merits review application under s 99 of the ART Act (CB 123-128). In the attached statement of decision, after recounting the procedural history, the Tribunal stated:
   1. The Tribunal refused to further adjourn the review. The applicant made no mention of being unwell when he requested the hearing modality change to telephone the day before the hearing scheduled for 22 August 2025 and failed to provide medical evidence to support his contention that he was too unwell to attend the hearing and/or speak properly due to a sore throat. The Tribunal advised that applicant that his request for postponement was refused in an email on 22 August 2025 sent at 9.27am (Eastern standard time). In that email the Tribunal also advised that the hearing would proceed as scheduled.
   2. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the scheduled time. The hearing attendant telephoned the applicant on the last number he had provided for the purposes of the review (which was also set out in the hearing notice) four times in the period from 10. 15 am to 10.45 am with the call going straight to voicemail. The hearing attendant left a message for the review applicant to call the Tribunal on the 10.45am call, however as at the date of this decision he has not contacted the Tribunal further.
   3. 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), and the notice has not been returned to sender. The Tribunal is also satisfied that two separate SMS reminders were also sent to the review applicant about the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the hearing.
   4. The review applicant requested the hearing be adjourned however the Tribunal refused the request for the reasons above and advised him that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. The applicant did not answer the Tribunal's four telephone calls at the time of the scheduled hearing or contact the Tribunal thereafter, as at the date of this decision.
   5. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to dismiss the application without further consideration of the application or the information before the Tribunal.
4. In a covering letter attached to the Tribunal's email of 26 August 2025, the Tribunal advised the applicant about the process of applying for reinstatement in the following terms (CB 124):

You may apply to us, in writing, for reinstatement of the application by 23 September 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. If 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 23 September 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.

A written statement of our decision to reinstate the application or to confirm the dismissal of the application will be given to you.

1. On 9 September 2025, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to request that his merits review application be reinstated (CB 129). The applicant's request stated:

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the scheduled hearing on 22 August 2025. The day before the hearing, I began feeling unwell with fever and a sore throat. Due to my condition, I requested to switch the mode of hearing from in-person to telephone. However, on the night before the hearing, my illness worsened and I was unable to sleep. On the morning of the hearing, I still had fever and a very sore throat, which made it extremely difficult to speak clearly. I considered it inappropriate and impractical to attend the telephone hearing under those circumstances.

I did send an email to notify the Tribunal that I was unwell and unable to attend because of my sore throat and fever. I sincerely apologise for my non-attendance and any inconvenience caused.

I respectfully request that the Tribunal reinstates my application, as my absence was due to genuine medical reasons outside of my control. I remain committed to fully participating in the review process and complying with any further directions of the Tribunal.

1. The Tribunal responded to the email on 12 September 2025 to request "medical evidence of your illness which meant you were unable to attend the hearing" (CB 130).
2. On 22 September 2025 the applicant responded to the Tribunal, stating, among other things that (CB 131):

The reason I was unable to attend is that I tested positive for COVID-19 and was unwell with fever, sore throat, and fatigue at that time, which made it impractical to participate in the hearing. There is no specific medicine available for COVID treatment and recommended that I take rest until I recovered.

1. The Tribunal considered the application for reinstatement and decided to confirm its decision to dismiss the merits review application on 30 September 2025 (CB 132-141).
2. It is convenient to set out the terms of the confirmation decision in full (footnotes omitted):
   1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 8 August 2023 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) Subclass 602 visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
   2. The review applicant lodged a review application with the Tribunal on 24 August 2023.
   3. On 25 August 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.
   4. 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.
   5. On 9 September 2025, within 28 days of receiving notice of the dismissal decision, the review applicant applied for reinstatement of the application, via email. In his request the review applicant stated:

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the scheduled hearing on 22 August 2025. The day before the hearing, I began feeling unwell with fever and a sore throat. Due to my condition, I requested to switch the mode of hearing from in-person to telephone. However, on the night before the hearing my illness worsened and I was unable to sleep. On the morning of the hearing, I still had fever and a very sore throat, which made it extremely difficult to speak clearly. I considered it inappropriate and impractical to attend the telephone hearing under those circumstances.

I did send an email to notify the Tribunal that I was unwell and unable to attend because of my sore throat and fever. I sincerely apologise for my non-attendance and any inconvenience caused.

I respectfully request that the Tribunal reinstate my application, as my absence was due to genuine medical reasons outside of my control. I remain committed to fully participating in the review process and complying with any further directions of the Tribunal.

1. By email on 12 September 2025 the Tribunal requested the review applicant provide medical evidence of his illness which meant he was unable to attend the hearing by 22 September 2025. In the email the review applicant was asked to ensure the evidence specifies the nature of his illness and why he was unable to participate in the hearing.

7. In an email to the Tribunal on 22 September 2025 the review applicant stated:

The reason I was unable to attend is that I tested positive for COVID-19 and was unwell with fever, sore throat, and fatigue at that time, which made it impractical to participate in the hearing. There is no specific medicine available for COVID treatment and recommended that I take rest until I recovered.

1. For the following reasons, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.
2. The review applicant claims he was unable to attend the hearing due to having a fever and sore throat and later advised that he had tested positive for COVID-19. He requested the hearing be postponed due to his sore throat on the morning of the hearing, which the Tribunal refused because he made no mention of being unwell when he had requested the hearing modality be changed the day prior - from in person to telephone - and his claims he was too unwell to speak properly due to a sore throat was not supported by medical evidence. The applicant was advised that his hearing postponement request was refused, and that the hearing would proceed as scheduled, yet he did not answer his telephone at the scheduled time the four times a hearing attendant telephoned him on the day of the hearing.
3. Further, the applicant did not contact the Tribunal to explain his non-attendance until he applied for reinstatement on 9 September 2025 reiterating his reasons for non-attendance due to a sore throat. When asked to provide medical evidence of such the review applicant did not, instead reiterating his reasons for non-appearance and adding that he tested positive for COVID-19. This does not adequately explain, in the Tribunal's view, why he was unable to participate in the hearing, or at least contact the Tribunal to advise as such on the day of the hearing.
4. Given these concerns the Tribunal is not satisfied the review applicant has provided a reasonable excuse for his absence at the hearing on 22 August 2025.
5. In deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion to reinstate this matter, the Tribunal has also considered the review applicant's general conduct in progressing his application for review.
6. As set out in the initial dismissal decision record dated 25 August 2025 the review applicant failed to appear at an earlier hearing (on 12 June 2025) however his matter was reinstated. He then sought two further hearing postponement requests which were granted in the circumstances. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to reinstate the matter because at the time it considered it appropriate to do so: the review applicant having claimed to have been involved in a minor car accident whilst driving home from a medical appointment and providing evidence of the appointment. The Tribunal also exercised its discretion to grant two hearing postponement requests given they were in the context of the review applicant's wife's pregnancy and on the second occasion, her miscarriage (which was supported by evidence).
7. In contrast the Tribunal notes on the day of the scheduled hearing on 22 August 2025 the review applicant only communicated with the Tribunal to seek a postponement but not after that was refused, despite the Tribunal emailing the review applicant to advise his postponement request was refused and telephoning him four times at the scheduled hearing time. He claims he had a sore throat which meant he could not speak properly but has failed to provide any medical evidence to support his claim.
8. Given this history it appears to the Tribunal the review applicant has primarily engaged with the Tribunal for the purposes of seeking hearing postponement requests and reinstatement of dismissal decisions. For the reasons above the Tribunal refused his most recent hearing postponement request and the review applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
9. For these reasons and having regard to the reasons for the review applicant's failure to appear, and his conduct generally in progressing the review, the Tribunal is not satisfied in these circumstances that it is appropriate to reinstate the review application.
10. The decision to dismiss the application is confirmed. In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.

1. The present proceeding was commenced by originating application filed on 30 October 2025 and affidavit in support affirmed by the applicant on 24 October 2025.
2. The application sets out fives grounds of review as follows:

Ground 1 - Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction

Particulars

1. The Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law to review the delegate's decision on the merits.

2. The applicant lodged a reinstatement request within the prescribed statutory period, providing written reasons that he was unwell and unable to attend the hearing.

3. The Tribunal confined its consideration to whether a medical certificate was produced, without turning its mind to whether the explanation as a whole constituted a "reasonable excuse" under s 99.

4. The Tribunal's reasoning shows it treated the absence of documentary medical evidence as dispositive, thereby failing to consider the totality of the applicant's circumstances, including contemporaneous illness notification and correspondence.

5. In doing so, the Tribunal effectively declined to exercise its statutory function to review the primary decision, constituting a failure to exercise jurisdiction.

6. The error was material because, had the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction, the applicant would have been entitled to a full merits review and the outcome could have been different.

Ground 2 - Denial of Procedural Fairness

Particulars

1. The Tribunal reached adverse conclusions about the applicant's credibility, stating that his explanation for non-attendance was not accepted as reasonable.

2. Those adverse findings were based on an assumed lack of credibility and absence of medical evidence, neither of which was put to the applicant for comment or clarification.

3. The Tribunal failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to respond to the concern that his account was insufficiently substantiated before dismissing the reinstatement request.

4. The Tribunal's communication of 12 September 2025 requested medical evidence but did not indicate that failure to provide a medical certificate would result in a refusal or reinstatement.

5. The applicant was thus denied a fair opportunity to address the precise matters determinative of the decision.

6. The error was material because, had the applicant been informed of the Tribunal's concern, he could have provided contemporaneous medical proof or further explanation that may have resulted in reinstatement.

Ground 3 - Taking into Account Irrelevant Considerations

Particulars

1. In determining whether to reinstate, the Tribunal took into account the applicant's past postponement requests and an earlier reinstatement arising from unrelated circumstances.

2. Those prior procedural events were not relevant to whether a reasonable excuse existed for the specific non-attendance on 22 August 2025.

3. The statutory discretion under s 99 requires an assessment of the excuse for the particular hearing, not generalised conduct across the proceeding.

4. By weighing irrelevant history as an adverse factor, the Tribunal diverted itself from the proper statutory question.

5. This introduced extraneous considerations into the reasoning process, affecting the integrity of the decision.

6. The error was material because the Tribunal's adverse view of the applicant's past conduct contributed directly to its conclusion that reinstatement was not appropriate.

Ground 4 - Failure to Take into Account Relevant Considerations

Particulars

1. The Tribunal was required to consider all relevant circumstances bearing upon whether the applicant had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance.

2. The record demonstrates that the applicant notified the Tribunal on the morning of the hearing that he was unwell and unable to participate.

3. The Tribunal failed to evaluate the significance of this timely notification or the context of a known COVID-19 infection affecting the applicant's ability to speak or attend.

4. The Tribunal's reasons make no reference to the fact that the applicant's communication was made before the hearing time and that he later provided further explanation of illness.

5. These matters were directly relevant to the statutory question and required active consideration.

6. The omission to consider them amounted to a failure to take into account relevant considerations.

7. The error was material because, had those matters been considered, the Tribunal may have been satisfied that the applicant's excuse was reasonable and reinstatement appropriate.

Ground 5 - Legal Unreasonableness

Particulars

1. The Tribunal's decision was legally unreasonable in that it was plainly unjust, disproportionate, and lacking an evident and intelligible justification.
2. The Tribunal treated the absence of a formal medical certificate as determinative, disregarding the applicant's consistent explanation, email notifications, and confirmation that he had tested positive for COVID-19.
3. It failed to balance the minor procedural default against the applicant's otherwise compliant conduct and the clear statutory purpose of enabling merits review where an excuse exists.
4. No reasonable decision-maker could have concluded, on the material before the Tribunal, that the explanation was unreasonable or that reinstatement was inappropriate.
5. The conclusion reached was illogical and disproportionate to the evidence before the Tribunal.
6. The error was material because, had the Tribunal exercised its discretion reasonably, the applicant's review would have been reinstated and proceeded to substantive determination.

1. On 15 December 2025 a Registrar of the Court made orders programming the matter for a final hearing "on an expedited basis after 27 February 2026".
2. On 17 and 23 February 2026 the parties were notified that the proceeding was listed for final hearing on 4 March 2026 at 10.00am.
3. On 2 March 2026 the proceeding was allocated to the Court as presently constituted.
4. The applicant represented himself at the hearing before me on 4 March 2026 appearing via Webex. The applicant relied on his originating application and affidavit in support.
5. As the applicant's originating application indicated that he may require the assistance of an interpreter, the Court arranged for a Punjabi interpreter to attend the hearing. However, when asked, the applicant indicated that he would only require the assistance of the interpreter if he was not able to understand anything or make himself understood. The interpreter was present for the entirety of the hearing but the applicant did not require his assistance at any time. It was apparent that the applicant's level of English proficiency was sufficient to make himself understood and it appeared to me that he understood the Court and the submissions made on behalf of the Minister in so far as his responses to questions and his submissions in reply were responsive to the matters asked and/or put.
6. As the applicant was not legally represented, I commenced the hearing by explaining the role of the Court on a judicial review application and the need for the applicant to establish jurisdictional error consistent with [55]-[58] below.
7. The Minister was represented at the hearing by solicitor advocate. The Minister relied on his response filed on 11 December 2025, the court book filed on 12 January 2026, an outline of written submissions filed on 23 February 2026, and an affidavit of Ms Alexandra Rose Rawson-Harris affirmed on 23 February 2026.
8. At the hearing the applicant claimed that he had not seen the Minister's outline of submissions. That claim was inconsistent with the affidavit evidence filed by the Minister deposing to service of that document at the applicant's nominated email address for service. Nevertheless, I arranged for a copy of those submissions to be sent to the applicant again and stood the matter down to allow him time to read them before continuing with the hearing.

THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

1. The role of the Court in this judicial review proceeding is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the Tribunal's decision by reference to the applicant's complaints about that decision: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21 at [17]. The Court does not consider the merits or wisdom of the Tribunal's decision: Djokovic at [17]; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [31].
2. The Court may grant relief if it is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error: see generally Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476. Jurisdictional error by a statutory decision maker may manifest itself in a variety of ways. Recognised categories of jurisdictional error include "misunderstanding the applicable law; asking the wrong question; exceeding the bounds of reasonableness; identifying a wrong issue; ignoring relevant material; relying on irrelevant material; in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion; or failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness": LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 280 CLR 321 at [3]. Different kinds of error may overlap: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [82]. The categories are not closed: LPDT at [3]. The critical question is whether the decision maker has exceeded the authority or power conferred by the statute: Yusuf at [82].
3. In most but not all cases, for an error to be jurisdictional, the error must be material to the decision being challenged. For an error to be material there must be a "realistic possibility" that the decision that was made "could" have been different but for the error: LPDT at [7]. This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined": MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 273 CLR 506 at [38]. It has been described as an "undemanding" standard: Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 276 CLR 80 at [33].
4. Disagreement with a decision, even emphatic disagreement, does not in and of itself give rise to jurisdictional error: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611 at [40]. The Court does not have general jurisdiction to cure (actual or perceived) administrative injustice or error: Wu Shan Liang at [31], citing Brennan J in Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 at [17].

1. By ground 1 the applicant asserts that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not reviewing the merits of his application, treating the absence of a medical certificate as decisive and not considering the applicant's written explanation for his inability to attend the hearing due to illness, thereby declining to perform its statutory function.
2. It was not entirely clear to me whether this ground was directed towards the dismissal decision or the confirmation decision. However, on either basis, it must be rejected.
3. In respect of the dismissal decision, as was submitted by the Minister, once the applicant did not attend the hearing on 22 August 2025, s 99 of the ART Act empowered the Tribunal to dismiss the application for review without consideration of the information before it. As the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the hearing (at [10] of the dismissal decision reproduced above), it was not required to assess the merits of the underlying application: AGK25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1402 at [41].
4. Nor was the Tribunal required to consider the underlying merits of the application in making the confirmation decision. What the Tribunal was required to do pursuant to s 368C(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was to consider whether it was "appropriate" to reinstate the application.
5. The Tribunal's reasons for the confirmation, reproduced above, plainly demonstrate that it performed this statutory task.
6. In considering whether it was satisfied that it was appropriate to reinstate the application, the Tribunal considered: the applicant's various explanations for non-attendance at the hearing on 22 August 2025; that the applicant was advised that his request to postpone that hearing was refused and that the hearing would proceed as scheduled, but did not answer the four calls to him placed by the Tribunal at the time of the scheduled hearing; that one day before the hearing the applicant had requested the hearing modality be changed from in person to telephone but did not make mention of being unwell; that the applicant did not contact the Tribunal between 22 August 2025 and 9 September 2025 to explain his non-attendance at the hearing; the lack of medical evidence provided in support of the application for reinstatement, notwithstanding that such documentation was specifically requested by the Tribunal to substantiate the application; and the general procedural history of the review application.
7. Having regard to these matters the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided a reasonable excuse for his absence at the hearing on 22 August 2025, and that it appeared that the applicant had primarily engaged with the Tribunal for the purposes of seeking hearing postponements and reinstatement of dismissal decisions. For those reasons, the Tribunal determined that it was not appropriate to reinstate the application.
8. It follows from the above that there is no discernible failure by the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction and ground 1 is not made out.

1. By ground 2 the applicant asserts he was denied procedural fairness because the lack of medical evidence was treated as determinative and because the Tribunal made adverse findings about the reasonableness of his explanation for failing to attend the hearing on 22 August 2025, without putting those concerns to him or indicating that the absence of a medical certificate could lead to a refusal of his application for reinstatement, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to respond to the Tribunal's concerns.
2. There is no apparent denial of procedural fairness in the confirmation decision or the process that preceded it.
3. As the Minister submitted, the Tribunal afforded the applicant multiple opportunities to present his case at a hearing as is required by s 55 of the ART Act, including by inviting him to attend four separate hearings, reinstating one hearing after he failed to appear, granting two earlier postponement requests, and by changing the modality of the 22 August 2025 hearing to telephone at the applicant's request. The Tribunal also correctly sent the applicant a copy of the dismissal decision and a letter outlining his right to reinstate the application on 26 August 2025, as is a requirement of s 368B of the Act.
4. In relation to his reinstatement application, by its email of 12 September 2025, the Tribunal gave the applicant an opportunity to provide medical evidence in support of his reasons for not attending the hearing on 22 August 2025, noting that the evidence should "specify the nature of your illness and why you were unable to participate in the hearing".
5. The applicant did not provide any medical evidence in response to this request. As set out earlier, he explained by return email that the reason he had been unable to attend was that he had tested positive for COVID-19, was unwell with fever, sore throat, and fatigue at that time, and that this "made it impractical to participate in the hearing".
6. In the circumstances of this case, there was no procedural fairness obligation on the Tribunal to further communicate to the applicant that if the requested evidence was not provided the reinstatement request may be dismissed, nor to provide the applicant an additional opportunity to address the Tribunal's concerns.
7. Moreover, contrary to what is suggested in the applicant's particulars to this ground, it is evident from the Tribunal's reasons for the confirmation decision that it did not treat the absence of medical evidence as determinative. As I set out earlier in relation to ground 1, the absence of medical evidence was but one of a number of considerations that led the Tribunal to conclude that it was not appropriate to reinstate his application.
8. Insofar as the applicant asserts that the Tribunal reached adverse conclusions about his credibility, and that those adverse conclusions ought to have been put to him for comment or clarification, that allegation is misconceived. The Tribunal did not make any adverse credibility findings. It did not, for instance, disbelieve the applicant's claim that he had tested positive for COVID-19 or had a sore throat on the day of the hearing. What the Tribunal found was that this did not adequately explain why the applicant was unable to participate in the hearing.
9. For those reasons ground 2 is not made out.

1. By ground 3 the applicant asserts that the Tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations by relying on the applicant's earlier postponement requests and prior reinstatement, which were extraneous to whether there was a reasonable excuse for the applicant's non-attendance at the hearing on 22 August 2025.
2. A consideration will only be an irrelevant consideration where a decision-maker is specifically (or by necessary implication) prohibited from taking it into account: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 15(b) (Mason J).
3. No considerations are proscribed by s 368C(3)(a) of the Act. As set out earlier, s 368C(3)(a) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to reinstate an application "if it considers it appropriate to do so".
4. Accordingly, there is no statutory requirement for the Tribunal to disregard an applicant's procedural history when determining if a matter should be reinstated, and ground 3 must be rejected.

1. By ground 4 the applicant asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant matters, namely the applicant having made the postponement request shortly before the hearing on 22 August 2025 because he was unwell and was unable to participate in the hearing, his subsequent notification to the Tribunal that the reasons for his non-attendance was a COVID-19 infection, and that his illness affected his ability to participate in the hearing.
2. As was submitted by the Minister, the Tribunal's reasons directly contradict these assertions. The Tribunal expressly considered the postponement email on the morning of the hearing and the applicant's later assertion that he had COVID-19. When weighed against other considerations, such as the absence of corroborating medical evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had provided a reasonable excuse for his absence at the hearing. Accordingly, ground 4 must be rejected.

1. By ground 5 the applicant asserts that the Tribunal's decision was legally unreasonable. Specifically, he asserts that the Tribunal's refusal to reinstate the review application lacked an evident and intelligible justification because it elevated the absence of a medical certificate over the applicant's consistent illness explanations and notifications, and failed to balance the applicant's otherwise compliant conduct and communications with the Tribunal regarding his non-appearance.
2. As I said earlier, the task of the Tribunal was to consider whether it was "appropriate" to reinstate the application pursuant to s 368C(3)(a) of the Act. That task is subject to the ordinary bounds of legal reasonableness, which require the reasoning not be arbitrary, capricious, or abandon common sense, and for the decision to have an "evident and intelligent justification": Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [28] and [76]; Minister for Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].
3. A finding of unreasonableness is "not easily made" and the applicant must establish that the decision "is so lacking a rational or logical foundation that the decision... was one that no rational or logical decision-maker could reach": Djokovic at [33]-[34]. If a finding "is one upon which reasonable minds can differ, it will not be legally illogical, irrational or unreasonable": Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Sabharwal [2018] FCAFC 160 at [45].
4. As I set out earlier in relation to ground 1, in considering the reinstatement application the Tribunal considered: the applicant's various explanations for non-attendance at the hearing on 22 August 2025; that the applicant was advised that his request to postpone that hearing was refused and that the hearing would proceed as scheduled, but did not answer the four calls to him placed by the Tribunal at the time of the scheduled hearing; that one day before the hearing the applicant had requested the hearing modality be changed from in person to telephone but did not make mention of being unwell; that the applicant did not contact the Tribunal between 22 August 2025 and 9 September 2025 to explain his non-attendance at the hearing; the lack of medical evidence provided in support of the application for reinstatement, notwithstanding that such documentation was specifically requested by the Tribunal to substantiate the application; and the procedural history of the review application.
5. It was having regard to those considerations that the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided a reasonable excuse for his absence at the hearing on 22 August 2025, and that it appeared that the applicant had primarily engaged with the Tribunal for the purposes of seeking hearing postponements and reinstatement of dismissal decisions. For those reasons, the Tribunal concluded that it was not appropriate to reinstate the application.
6. Having regard to the above, I accept the Minister's submission that the Tribunal's reasoning was open to it based upon the evidence before it and that there was an evident and intelligent justification for the conclusions drawn.
7. Even if the Tribunal did place greater weight on the lack of supporting medical evidence than on the applicant's unsupported written statements that he was ill, the weight to be given to any particular discretionary consideration, such as medical evidence or lack thereof, is plainly a matter for the Tribunal not the Court: Peko-Wallsend at 15(d) (Mason J).
8. Finally, I note that the applicant's oral submissions made clear that he strongly disagrees with the decision made by the Tribunal and feels that it was unfair. However, as the authorities I set out earlier make plain, mere disagreement with a decision (even emphatic disagreement) does not establish jurisdictional error.
9. Having regard to the above, ground 5 is not made out.

1. As none of the applicant's grounds have been made out, the proceeding will be dismissed.
2. The Minister sought costs in the sum of $9,097.93 being the scale amount prescribed at item 3, Division 1, Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). I am satisfied that the Minister is entitled to his costs in the proceedings on the basis that costs ought to follow the event. I am further satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order for payment of the amount sought having regard to the extent of work undertaken by the Minister as evidenced by the court file.

I certify that the preceding ninety-two (92) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Edwards.