Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 1486

1. On 28 April 2023, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) invited Mr Harsimran Singh to attend a hearing on 3 May 2023 "to give evidence and present arguments" relating to his application for review of a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (the Delegate and the Minister, respectively) to refuse to grant him a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa (a Student Visa). That was the fourth occasion on which the Tribunal had invited him to attend such a hearing, the previous three hearings having been postponed at his request. As it was, Mr Singh did not attend the hearing listed on 3 May 2023 and, after unsuccessfully attempting to contact him, the Tribunal dismissed his application pursuant to s 362B(1A)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on the basis of his failure to appear (the Non-appearance Decision). Though Mr Singh subsequently sought the reinstatement of his review application, the Tribunal, on 18 May 2023, confirmed its earlier decision (the Confirmation Decision).
2. Before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (the FCFCOA), Mr Singh applied for review of both the Non-appearance Decision and the Confirmation Decision. That application was heard on 11 October 2023 and dismissed two weeks later: see Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 941 (Singh). By a notice of appeal filed on 6 November 2023, Mr Singh now appeals from that decision.
3. At the crux of Mr Singh's complaint is that, in making the Confirmation Decision, the Tribunal did not give sufficient weight to a medical certificate which was provided to it on 17 May 2023. It had stated that Mr Singh was "UNFIT for [his] usual Work" on 3 May 2023, with the reason given being, simply, "Medical". He appears to assert that if appropriate weight were given to that certificate, the Tribunal would have reinstated his application, and a hearing could be held.
4. For the reasons which follow, Mr Singh's appeal to this Court is without merit. The Tribunal was required to consider the reason/s advanced for his non-attendance at the hearing. It did so and considered such reason/s to be insufficient; there was no unreasonableness in it finding so.

1. In order to appreciate the Tribunal's conclusions as to the inadequacy of Mr Singh's reason for not attending at the hearing on 3 May 2023, it is necessary to identify some relevant context.
2. Mr Singh is a citizen of India. He is 30 years old. He arrived in Australia in late November 2016 and was granted a Student Visa on 10 May 2019 (which was valid until 15 March 2021).
3. On 12 March 2021, he lodged an application for a Student Visa with the Department of Home Affairs (the Department). The Department acknowledged receipt of that application later that day. Some three-and-a-half months later, on 30 June 2021, it invited him to comment on certain "unfavourable" and "adverse" information which it had received and allegedly raised "serious concerns" as to his "potential circumstances in Australia" as well as the "value" of his courses of study to both his future and "genuine intentions in Australia".
4. Mr Singh responded to the above invitation on 20 July 2021. Notwithstanding the claims made in his response, the Delegate, on 25 February 2022, determined to refuse to grant the appellant a Student Visa (the Delegate's Decision) on the basis that he did not satisfy the conditions of cl 500.212 of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). In particular, the Delegate was not satisfied Mr Singh "intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia" (cf cl 500.212(a)).
5. On 4 March 2022, Mr Singh applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Delegate's Decision.
6. It is noted that Mr Singh initially dealt with the Tribunal through a migration agent; however, in or about December 2022, he ceased utilising the services of that agent and instead dealt with the Tribunal directly. For that purpose, he provided his personal email address to the Tribunal.

The first adjournment: deferral of the hearing listed before the Tribunal on 17 April 2023

1. On 21 March 2023, the Tribunal invited Mr Singh (via email) to attend a hearing before it (by telephone) at 11:30 am AWST on 17 April 2023.
2. The day immediately prior to the hearing, being 16 April 2023, Mr Singh sent an email to the Tribunal requesting that it, "reschedule his hearing on medical grounds". That email stated:

I have a hearing scheduled for 17/04/2023 at 11:00 am for a student visa rejection review. I want to request the tribunal to reschedule the hearing until the next available date as my health is not 100 percent as of now. It might affect my contribution towards explaining my situation. I am finding it difficult to speak as I am experiencing a sore throat and high fever. I can provide a medical certificate as I have an appointment booked for tomorrow with my doctor. Please consider my situation and try to reschedule the hearing as I am not feeling healthy at the moment.

1. On 17 April 2023, the Tribunal wrote to Mr Singh to advise that it had acceded to his request:

Dear Mr Singh,

I am writing in relation to an application for review by the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT.

In response to your request for a postponement of todays hearing please be advised your request has been granted. Please note that this is on good faith that you will provide a medical certificate tomorrow regarding your inability to attend the telephone hearing today.

(Emphasis in original).

1. On 18 April 2023, Mr Singh provided a medical certificate to the Tribunal which advised that he was "unfit for work from 17/04/2023 till 19/04/2023". Mr Singh also provided the Tribunal with a copy of a medical prescription (dated 17 April 2023).

The second adjournment: deferral of the hearing listed before the Tribunal on 24 April 2023

1. On 19 April 2023, the Tribunal invited Mr Singh (via email) to attend a hearing before it (by telephone) at 8:30 am AWST on 24 April 2023.
2. Two days later, on 21 April 2023, Mr Singh wrote to the Tribunal asking it to delay the hearing. On this occasion, he asked for a delay of some "10-15 days". Specifically, he said:

Hi, I sent the copy of medical certificate and I am not feeling well at the moment as I'm in pain of my throat please allow me 10-15 days to recover as I have not fully recovered test due to which I can not explain my situation correctly. If you want I can present my medical certificate again.

1. Later that day, the Tribunal wrote to Mr Singh, by email, advising that it declined to delay the hearing any further. It stated that the medical certificate which had been provided only stated that he would be unfit for work "till" 19 April 2023. Further, as Mr Singh's original application was, at that time, over two years old and a year had lapsed since he had lodged his application for review, it observed that further delay in finalising the case was inappropriate. Nevertheless, it added that "further medical evidence [would] be considered if filed prior to [the] hearing".
2. On 24 April 2023, Mr Singh provided the Tribunal, via email, a further medical certificate. It was dated 23 April 2023 and certified that he had "a medical condition" and would "be unfit for work from 24/04/2023 to 25/04/2023 inclusive". In his covering email, Mr Singh said:

I have got the doctor's certificate as told earlier. I am still on strong medication for sore throat and high fever. Doctor has prescribed me medicine for ten days. Therefore, it might take upto ten day for me to recover. Please grant me a given time of 10-15 days to recover fully from this issue.

1. Later that day, the Tribunal advised that it had agreed to postpone the hearing. It said:

Dear Mr Singh

POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING - HARSIMRAN SINGH

I am writing in relation to the application for review made by you in respect of a decision to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

On 19 April 2023, we sent a letter inviting you to attend a hearing on 24 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in your case.

On 24 April 2023, we received a request that the hearing be postponed. The Member has considered the request carefully and has decided to postpone the hearing. As soon as a new hearing date is available, we will write to you again.

...

(Emphasis in original).

The third adjournment: deferral of the hearing listed before the Tribunal on 26 April 2023

1. On 24 April 2023, the Tribunal invited Mr Singh (via email) to attend a hearing before it (by telephone) at 11:00 am AWST on 26 April 2023.
2. Mr Singh replied later that day, again seeking that the hearing be postponed. He said:

The doctor has provided me with the medical for two days. However, I am not totally fit as I am not able to speak properly. Please allow me a few more days as I also need to prepare for the meeting.

1. A flurry of correspondence subsequently passed between the Tribunal and Mr Singh in which the latter repeatedly asked for a postponement (which the former repeatedly refused) (see Singh [22] - [25]). Importantly, at 9:39 am AWST on 26 April 2023, Mr Singh wrote to the Tribunal to advise that he had an "appointment booked at 10.45 Perth time" such that he could not attend the hearing "due to illness" but would "provide the medical certificate after [his] appointment [was] done". He implored the Tribunal to consider his request and adjourn the hearing.
2. The Tribunal ultimately acceded to that request. In its email to Mr Singh advising of the same, it requested that a medical certificate be provided. Specifically, it said:

Dear Mr Singh

HEARING POSTPONED - MR HARSIMRAN SINGH

I am writing in relation to the application for review made by you in respect of a decision to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

On 24 April 2023, we sent a letter inviting you to attend a hearing on 26 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in your case.

On 26 April 2023, we received a request that the hearing be postponed. The Member has considered the request carefully and has decided to postpone the hearing. This is granted in good faith that a medical certificate will be provided indicating your symptoms, diagnosis and why you cannot attend a 30 minute telephone hearing.

As soon as a new hearing date is available, we will write to you again.

...

(Emphasis in original).

1. It appears that no such medical certificate was provided to the Tribunal by the appellant.

The Non-appearance Decision and the Confirmation Decision

1. On 28 April 2023, the Tribunal invited Mr Singh (via email) to attend a hearing before it (by telephone) at 11:30 am AWST on 3 May 2023.
2. Mr Singh did not respond to that hearing invitation nor did he appear at the hearing. On 3 May 2023, when the hearing commenced, the Tribunal attempted to contact Mr Singh by telephone (on five separate occasions). It was unable to do so. As a result, at 11:58 am AWST on 3 May 2023, it dismissed Mr Singh's application pursuant to s 362B(1A)(b) of the Act on the ground of his failure to appear and "without further consideration of that application or the information before the Tribunal". As above, this is the decision referred to as the Non-appearance Decision.
3. Mr Singh was notified of the Non-appearance Decision by an email sent by the Tribunal on 3 May 2023. The covering letter attached to the email relevantly stated:

Dear Mr Singh

NOTIFICATION OF DECISION TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION - MR HARSIMRAN SINGH

I am writing in relation to the application for review made by you in respect of a decision to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

On 28 April 2023 we sent a letter inviting you to attend a hearing on 3 May 2023 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in your case

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 along with an information sheet about dismissal of applications.

You may apply to us, in writing, for reinstatement of the application by 17 May 2023. 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.

(Emphasis in original).

1. On 17 May 2023, Mr Singh wrote to the Tribunal to request the reinstatement of his application. He also provided a copy of a medical certificate, which was dated 3 May 2023 and stated that, in the issuing doctor's opinion, Mr Singh would be "UNFIT for [his] usual Work" on 3 May 2023 (inclusive). The "reason" provided in the certificate was simply "Medical". The covering email that was sent by Mr Singh relevantly stated:

Information for reinstatement for appeal hearing

I got a email for missing the hearing and it was directed that I need to apply for reinstatement as I was so I'll (sic) that day due to which I couldn't attend the hearing and I'm providing the medical for reinstatement please consider this and provide me the new date.

1. On 18 May 2023, the Tribunal confirmed the Non-appearance Decision. Mr Singh was advised of such decision, and the reasons that underlay it, by correspondence sent the following day.

1. The Non-appearance Decision spans three paragraphs. In full, it provides:
   1. The review applicant was invited under section 360 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to appear before the Tribunal on 3 May 2023 at 1:30pm. The invitation 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 one business day before the scheduled hearing.
   2. 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 section 379A(5) of the Act, and the invitation has not been returned to sender. The Tribunal is also satisfied that an SMS reminder was sent to the review applicant about the hearing. The Tribunal called the applicant on the day of the hearing at 1:15, 1:20, 1:25, 1:30 and 1:35pm and the applicant did not attend the calls. No satisfactory reason for the non-appearance has been given.
   3. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to dismiss the application without further consideration of that application or the information before the Tribunal.

1. As is to be expected, the Confirmation Decision is also very brief, spanning only 22 paragraphs.
2. The Tribunal began by identifying the relevant circumstances then-before it, namely that it had dismissed Mr Singh's application for review of the Delegate's Decision on 3 May 2023 because he "did not appear before it to give evidence and present arguments at the time and date of the scheduled hearing" (at [1] - [2]). It also noted the circumstances surrounding the three earlier occasions on which Mr Singh had sought a postponement of the hearing and his claims to ill health supported by generic medical certificates (at [5] - [14]). In particular, it noted that, by an email of 24 April 2023, it had advised Mr Singh of the hearing which was to take place on 26 April 2023. In that email, it had identified that Mr Singh's original application was "over two years old and it ha[d] been over thirteen months since his application for review". It also indicated that the (two) medical certificates which Mr Singh had provided did not indicate that he was unfit for a half hour telephone hearing, nor did they give any detail as to his symptoms, condition or treatment (at [12]). The Tribunal noted that it subsequently agreed to adjourn the 26 April 2023 hearing, but did so in good faith that a medical certificate would be provided by Mr Singh which identified his symptoms, diagnosis and why he could not attend a 30-minute telephone hearing (at [14]). It noted that no such medical certificate was forthcoming (at [15]).
3. In relation to the hearing listed on 3 May 2023, the Tribunal identified that Mr Singh had been advised of its occurrence and invited to attend. It also noted that it had made several attempts to contact him by telephone, but Mr Singh did not answer (at [16] - [17]).
4. The Tribunal further observed that the medical certificate he subsequently provided on 17 May 2023 was inadequate to justify his non-attendance. It stated (at [18] - [19]):
   1. On 17 May 2023, the applicant filed a medical certificate dated 03/05/2023 stating that the applicant 'will, in my opinion, be UNFIT for their usual Work on the following dates (inclusive): FROM 03/05/2023 TO: [blank]'. The reason provided in this medical certificate is 'medical'.
   2. Whilst the applicant may have been unable to participate in his usual occupation on 3 May 2023, I do not accept that the applicant was unable to participate in a telephone hearing of limited duration at the schedule date. The Tribunal made it clear in its correspondence of 26 April 2023 that a further medical certificate provided by the applicant should indicate his symptoms, diagnosis and an explanation as to why the applicant could not attend a 30-minute telephone hearing. The medical certificate provided on 17 May 2023 does not address any of these.
5. Having regard to the evidence before it, the Tribunal found that it was inappropriate to reinstate the application and, therefore, confirmed the original decision to dismiss it (at [20] - [22]).

1. On 1 June 2023, Mr Singh applied to the FCFCOA for review of the Confirmation Decision.
2. The grounds of review enumerated in that application were vague and indeterminate, being:

1. Improper Review of Application.

2. Medical Certificate Assessment.

1. In an affidavit that was filed in support of such application on 1 June 2023, Mr Singh appeared to complain that, despite his submission of medical certificates on multiple occasions, he was not given a fair chance to explain his situation. Specifically, he made the following assertion:
   1. I submitted relevant documents when asked by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for assessing my review of the decision made by Department of Home Affairs. I had medical condition when tribunal gave me a date to provide my response. Even after submitting my medical certificate on multiple occasions, tribunal did not provide a fair chance to explain my situation and did not even had a glance at my course progression across this time period.
2. In this respect, it is noted that the FCFCOA granted Mr Singh leave to amend his application for judicial review to include the Confirmation Decision and Non-appearance Decision (Singh [54]). Self-evidently, his application would have been inutile if that relief were not sought.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned primary judge below explained to Mr Singh their role in the adjudicative process and, particularly, that it was not able to grant him the visa he sought (Singh [57] - [58]), it appears that the appellant nevertheless sought to reagitate his claim that, on 3 May 2023, he was "not medically fit" and somehow missed the correspondence that had been sent by the Tribunal, on 28 April 2023, which notified him of that hearing (Singh [59]).
4. The learned primary judge, very properly, read Mr Singh's concerns as broadly as possible (see Singh [64], citing MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158) and identified that they related to one central issue: had the Tribunal properly considered the medical evidence, provided by Mr Singh, in relation to his failure to appear at the hearing?
5. His Honour then noted the relevant power - s 362B of the Act - provided that if the Tribunal considered it "appropriate" to reinstate an application, it was required to do so: s 362B(1C)(a). Alternatively, if the Tribunal did not consider reinstatement to be "appropriate", it was required to confirm the decision to dismiss the application: s 362B(1C)(b) (see Singh [71] - [72]).
6. In addressing what circumstances might be deemed "appropriate", as well as the considerations that ought to be taken into account, the primary judge referred to the reasons given in Kumar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 479 (Kumar). There, reference was made (at [39]) to certain observations made by O'Callaghan J in Serpinli v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2019] FCA 2029 where, in relation to coordinate provisions in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), his Honour noted (at [25] - [26]) that the Tribunal may have regard to a range of factors in determining the appropriateness of reinstating an application. His Honour recognised such factors "may vary from case to case" but included a consideration of "the merits of the substantive application, and in circumstances where the application was dismissed for a failure to appear at a hearing, the explanation for it".
7. In Kumar, O'Bryan J addressed similar provisions in the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (at [41] - [44]). Though not truly cognate provisions, those rules have had a similar interpretation, and it is recognised that the considerations which a court would take into account include, at least, whether the moving party had provided an "acceptable explanation" for their absence when the matter was called on, as well as the strength of their case on appeal (if the order which dismissed the appeal was to be set aside): Prashar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1573; (2001) 115 FCR 197, 199 [11]. His Honour also noted that other considerations may well include the conduct of the moving party in progressing their application and prejudice to other parties or the wider public if reinstatement occurred (at [47]). O'Bryan J also addressed the scope of the power under s 362B(1C) and identified that, in determining whether or not to reinstate an application, a mandatory consideration before the Tribunal is whether the relevant party has provided a "reasonable excuse for their absence at the hearing" (at [48]).
8. There is much commend to this view. An application will arise under s 362B(1B) of the Act in circumstances where the Tribunal dismisses a visa applicant's application under ss 362B(1) and (1A) by reason of their failure to appear before the Tribunal on the day on which, or at the time and place at which, they are scheduled to appear. In arriving at that decision, the Tribunal need not afford any further consideration to the application or the material before it. In other words, there is no need to consider the merits of the application; instead, the sole determining factor is the applicant's non-appearance. Correctively, and necessarily, the major determinant of whether that application should be reinstated is whether there exists a reasonable explanation for the applicant's initial non-appearance. On any view, it is difficult to think of circumstances in which an application would be reinstated in the absence of such explanation. One does not struggle to imagine the administrative chaos that would follow if applications were reinstated where applicants wontedly disregarded the hearing dates which had been dutifully notified.
9. If a reasonable explanation for the non-appearance is provided, it does not automatically follow that reinstatement will occur. In those circumstances, the Tribunal would be entitled to take into account other matters, such as the strength of the case and prejudice that may be caused to the administration of the Act. The primary judge correctly summed up such principles at [77]:

[77] Applying Kumar, the only mandatory consideration when a Tribunal is determining if it is appropriate to reinstate an application (following an applicant's failure to appear at a Tribunal hearing) is the reason for the applicant's failure to appear at that hearing. Further, other potentially relevant considerations may include the applicant's conduct generally in progressing their review application, any prejudice to the parties (or the wider community) arising from any reinstatement and whether the substantive application has sufficient merit to warrant reinstatement.

(Emphasis in original).

1. With such principles in mind, the primary judge recognised the Tribunal had given extensive consideration to the reason proffered by Mr Singh for his non-attendance. It had identified the medical certificate dated 3 May 2023, but given to the Tribunal on 17 May 2023, only identified that he was unfit for his "usual work" for a "Medical" reason. It noted that the certification did not suggest that he was unable to participate in a telephone hearing of limited duration on the scheduled date. That was important in light of the fact that the Tribunal had made clear in prior correspondence that any further medical certificate, provided by the appellant, was to identify his symptoms and diagnosis and provide an explanation as to why he could not attend a 30-minute telephone hearing. The Tribunal observed that the medical certificate provided on 17 May 2023 did not address any of those matters. The Tribunal also addressed the covering email sent by Mr Singh which asserted that he was so ill on that day of the hearing that he could not attend; no further explanation was, however, provided. Indeed, he did not provide any details as to why he was unable to participate in a 30-minute hearing by telephone (Singh [78] - [81]).
2. The primary judge thereupon concluded (at [82]) that:

[82] The Court considers that the Tribunal's reasoning above satisfies the mandatory requirement to give consideration to the applicant's reason for failing to attend the Tribunal hearing (as outlined in Kumar). In particular, the Tribunal noted the inadequacies of the medical certificate provided by the applicant and did not accept, based on the medical certificate before it, that the applicant was unable to "participate in a telephone hearing of limited duration".

1. The learned primary judge then went on to address a number of authorities dealing with the adequacies of medical certificates which were presented as an excuse for non-attendance at hearings. For instance, reference was made to the decision of Lindgren J in NAKX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs [2003] FCA 1559 (NAKX), where his Honour (at [5] - [10]) observed that medical certificates must address the critical question of whether, and if so why, the medical condition in question would prevent the "sufferer" from travelling to court and participating effectively in a hearing. A broad statement that they are "unable to attend court" was insufficient. Instead, what is required is an identification of the medical condition and the causative reasons why it would have the effect of preventing the sufferer from participating effectively in a court hearing (referred to at Singh [83]).
2. His Honour proceeded to note that such logic had been applied in Quach v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Adjournment) [2023] FCA 576 (at [9]). The relevant medical certificate proffered in that case was found to be insufficient to warrant the Court acting upon it. It did not provide a diagnosis of the condition suffered by the party nor explain the nature of that condition. Nor did it contain any opinion about whether the party was prevented or hindered in their preparation for, attendance at, or participation in, a hearing. Moreover, it did not contain any reasons which were sufficient to allow the Court to form its own view about the reliability of the opinion of the certifying doctor (referred to at Singh [84]).
3. From these authorities, the primary judge concluded that the Tribunal did not act unreasonably in determining that the medical certificate which had been provided by Mr Singh on 17 May 2023 was insufficient to warrant the reinstatement of his application for review. Indeed, it was noted that the certificate before the Court was of a "pro forma" character and failed to address the critical question identified in NAKX (see supra [49]). Thus, no reasonable explanation had been given for Mr Singh's failure to appear at the hearing on 3 May 2023 (Singh [85] - [86]).
4. The learned primary judge also noted that the Tribunal had considered, and taken into account, Mr Singh's conduct generally in relation to the review application when determining whether to reinstate it. It considered the number of previous hearings that had been listed and Mr Singh's requests for adjournments and the reasons, or lack thereof, offered in support of his requests. His Honour observed the Tribunal had, across the period of the three adjournments, indicated to Mr Singh that it required more detailed evidence to grant him further adjournments and, in particular, had requested a medical certificate which indicated his symptoms, diagnosis and why he was not able to attend the hearing of 30 minutes in length. In relation to that past history, the primary judge recognised that the Tribunal had given Mr Singh every opportunity to present his case and that it was entitled to conclude that, "enough is enough" - meaning that he had been given sufficient opportunity in the circumstances of this case (Singh [87] - [97]).
5. In the result, the primary judge was satisfied that there was no jurisdictional error in relation to either the Non-appearance Decision or the Confirmation Decision (Singh [98]). Accordingly, Mr Singh's application for judicial review was dismissed (Singh [99] - [100]).

1. Mr Singh filed a notice of appeal vis-à-vis the primary judge's decision on 6 November 2023.
2. Shortly thereafter, and in the usual course, a Registrar of the Court made directions that sought to erect a general timetable which would carry the appeal through to hearing. Whilst no hearing date was then identified, that timetable required the appellant to, amongst other things, file and serve submissions no later than ten business days before the hearing date (if unrepresented).
3. Owing to delays referable to the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr Singh's appeal was only allocated to my docket on 13 October 2025. The parties were advised of such via email later that day:

Dear parties

WAD281/2023 | HARSIMRAN SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR

I refer to the above matter, which has been listed before Justice Derrington at 9:30 am AWST on Wednesday, 26 November 2025.

The hearing will be conducted at the Western Australian Registry of the Federal Court of Australia.

1. Provision of appeal material

It appears that the appellant is unrepresented.

Therefore, and in accordance with paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 of the Orders of Registrar McCormick of 15 November 2023 (see attached):

• by 29 October 2025, the first respondent (the Minister) is to file and serve:

(a) the appeal book (prepared in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 10); and

(b) a written outline of submissions (prepared in accordance with paragraph 9).

• by 12 November 2025, the appellant is to file and serve a written outline of submissions (prepared in accordance with paragraph 9).

• by 19 November 2025, the Minister is to file and serve a written outline of submissions in reply (prepared in accordance with paragraph 9).

• by 21 November 2025, the Minister is to file and serve a joint list of authorities and legislation (prepared in accordance with paragraph 10).

...

(Emphasis in original).

1. It is noted that Mr Singh has not filed, or otherwise provided, any form of written submissions.
2. Further correspondence was sent to the parties on 30 October 2025 and 17 November 2025. In the latter email, the parties were reminded of the listing time of the hearing ("9:30 am AWST on Wednesday, 26 November 2025"), advised that such hearing was to be conducted remotely (and provided with a Microsoft Teams link by which they could participate) and requested to provide details of their appearances, drafts of any orders to be sought, and any other materials by "1:00 pm AWST on Monday, 24 November 2025" (emphasis in original).
3. In the early hours of the morning of 25 November 2025, Mr Singh sent the following email to the Queensland Registry of the Court:

I have a hearing listed on Wednesday 26 November 2025 which due to my family reasons I would not be able to attend. Actually, my wife is 22 weeks pregnant and her health is not doing well at the moment due to which I need to take her to doctor and hospital on Wednesday. ... her mental health is not doing well. She has to attend the important appointment with the doctor and as her partner I have to be with her at the time of appointment as she need support both mentally and emotionally. Please assign me any other timing for the hearing as going to take my wife to the doctor is very important for me as this stage for both my wife and my coming child. It would do huge favour on me. I have attached the proof of my wife's pregnancy and her appointment with the doctor.

1. Attached to that email was (a) a picture of a booking confirmation which stated that a person, seemingly the wife of Mr Singh, had a "Standard appt" before a Dr V Gupta at 10:20 am AWST on Wednesday, 26 November 2025; and (b) a picture of a letter, signed by a Dr S Dissanayake and dated 26 August 2025, which stated that Mr Singh's wife was then eight weeks pregnant.
2. The Court acceded to such request and delayed the hearing of the appeal until 1:30 pm AWST (being over three hours after the medical appointment which Mr Singh sought to attend). The Registry advised the parties of such by an email sent at 7:26 am AWST on 25 November 2025:

Dear parties

WAD281/2023 | HARSIMRAN SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR

I refer to the above matter and below correspondence.

Justice Derrington notes the personal circumstances identified by Mr Singh.

To accommodate for such, please be advised that his Honour has re-listed the matter for hearing at 1:30 pm AWST tomorrow, 26 November 2025.

His Honour reminds the parties that tomorrow's hearing will be conducted over Microsoft Teams.

The relevant Microsoft Teams link is set out below:

...

(Emphasis in original).

1. At 6:26 am AWST on 26 November 2025, Mr Singh sent a response to the Registry's email:

From the email, it came to my knowledge that the new timing for the hearing is 01:30pm. As in my previous email, I explained that it is quite impossible for me to attend the hearing today given the personal circumstances which I explained in my previous email. The doctor might send us for further tests which they have on previous occasions, therefore, it might affect my capacity to attend the hearing. So, if possible, can we reschedule this hearing?

Please let me know if you require more information from my side.

1. At 7:38 am AWST that day, the Court responded to Mr Singh's request in the following terms:

Dear parties

WAD281/2023 | HARSIMRAN SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR

I refer to the above matter and below correspondence.

Justice Derrington notes the circumstances identified by Mr Singh below.

Please be advised that his Honour is not minded to grant any further adjournment of the hearing.

That is, the hearing in the above matter will proceed at 1:30 pm AWST today, 26 November 2025.

His Honour reminds the parties that the hearing will be conducted remotely (over Microsoft Teams).

The relevant Microsoft Teams link is set out below:

...

(Emphasis in original).

1. When the matter was called on for hearing at 1:30 pm AWST on 26 November 2025, Mr Singh appeared via the Teams platform link. He was not able to advance any reason why the Tribunal had erred in the making of either the Non-appearance Decision or the Confirmation Decision. Instead, he indicated that his desire was that he be afforded one more chance to have his matter heard before the Tribunal. So much was revealed by the following exchange:

HIS HONOUR: Yes. No. Well you've made the appeal, so I presume you're asking for an answer to the questions that has been put. But what is it that you want? What is it that you want from the hearing?

MR SINGH: Just, like, I put the appeal just to, you know, get one chance from the AAT for one more hearing. So that's it, your Honour.

1. It is noted that, during the course of the hearing, Mr Singh asserted that when he received a call from the Tribunal on 3 May 2023 (recall supra [26]), he was attending a doctor's appointment and was, therefore, unable to speak with the Tribunal. Specifically, he said that:

MR SINGH: ... So, your Honour, it's just like I got the call from AAT on the time of hearing, but I couldn't attend at the time. So I was with the doctor at the time of - when I was getting the call from AAT. So just I lost in between that time, so I missed it.

1. That was not something Mr Singh told the Tribunal when he sought his application for review to be reinstated (recall supra [28]). On the contrary, he had informed it that he was "so ill" that day that he could not possibly attend the hearing. On this appeal, the Court is not empowered to take into account evidence not before the Tribunal and, necessarily, the Tribunal cannot have erred in not considering information of which it was not aware.

1. The notice of appeal, filed in this Court in late 2023, is, with respect, even more defective than that which was before the primary judge. The identified "grounds of appeal" were simply:
   1. Dissatisfied with the decision made by Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
2. The "Orders sought" by Mr Singh on the appeal were identified as follows:
   1. I wanted Judge Kendall [the primary judge] to seek a second review from AAT on my visa application refusal.
3. It is sufficiently clear that Mr Singh's sole ground of appeal expresses mere dissatisfaction with the primary judge's decision, and he does not attempt to identify any error in the primary judge's reasons or decision. That is insufficient to sustain an appeal: see CXH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1498 [17]. Nevertheless, given Mr Singh appears by himself and is not legally trained or qualified, it is appropriate to take into account the observations of McKerracher J in COS16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 112:

[20] It is well-established that it is not the role of the Court to examine the reasons of the primary judge in detail in order to identify potential grounds of appeal: see, for example, BGZ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1095 per Flick J (at [10]). However, in the case of an unrepresented appellant, it is preferable for the Court to review the reasons under consideration and to determine whether there is any self-evident error as to the manner in which the Court or Tribunal has resolved the grounds of review previously advanced and which it would appear are sought to be re-agitated on appeal: see BGZ15 (at [11]). However, such an examination for an obvious error may fall well short of the Court parsing and analysing an administrative decision with a view to identifying a potential argument as to jurisdictional error. In the absence of self-evident error, there is no duty or function of the Court to articulate a question of law or to identify an error.

1. The Minister contends that the appeal is incompetent because of the absence of any appropriate grounds. There is force in that submission. Indeed, it is correct. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to address the substance of the concerns which appear to undergird Mr Singh's appeal.
2. As noted above (see, eg, supra [38] and [41]), Mr Singh was of the view that the Tribunal had not paid sufficient regard to his reasons for not attending the hearing on 3 May 2023. However, and as the evidence set out above reveals, the Tribunal did give real and careful consideration to Mr Singh's reasons for not attending before it. The Tribunal analysed the medical certificate proffered to it and correctly noted its limited scope and usefulness. In light of the authorities to which reference has been made, it was inadequate to provide a sufficient explanation for Mr Singh's failure to appear. It did not address the nature of any alleged medical condition, nor did it address how such condition may have prevented him from participating in a 30-minute hearing. Put simply, it did not provide any justification for his non-attendance at the hearing.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to rely upon those circumstances as indicating the absence of a reason for the failure to attend at the hearing and that was sufficient, in the circumstances, to warrant the conclusion that neither the Non-appearance Decision nor the Confirmation Decision should be set aside. It might be noted that the inadequacy of the medical certificate was compounded by the fact that Mr Singh had successfully obtained a deferral of the hearing on three previous occasions and had been specifically advised of the requirement for to produce an appropriately crafted medical certificate were he to seek any further adjournments of his hearing.
4. No other concern was raised by Mr Singh in relation to this matter. No error was shown to exist in the conclusions drawn by either the Tribunal or the primary judge.

1. In the result, the appeal is without merit. It should be dismissed, and Mr Singh should pay the Minister's costs of the appeal.
2. It is noted that the Minister seeks an order that the title to the proceeding be amended to align with the Commonwealth's current administrative arrangements. Such order should be made.

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