Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2093

1. These are the reasons for judgment delivered ex tempore on 10 December 2025, revised from transcript only to include extracts of cited documents and to make corrections of typographical errors or minor matters to reflect the intention of the Court.
2. This is an application for review of a decision of a registrar of this Court made on 3 November 2025. In that decision, the registrar dismissed the applicant's application for reinstatement of his originating application for judicial review. The originating application was dismissed on 29 July 2025 for non-appearance at a callover conducted by telephone.
3. The power to review a decision of a registrar is to be found in s 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth).
4. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (the Rules) also provide for the procedure of the Court for the conduct of a review. Rule 3.08 of the Rules provides that the Court must hear an application for a review as a hearing de novo, and must receive, as evidence, any affidavit and exhibit tendered before the registrar. The Court may also, with leave, receive further evidence. In this application, the applicant relies on an affidavit dated 6 August 2025, and an affidavit dated 17 November 2025. Both have been admitted as evidence in the application.
5. In the affidavit of 6 August 2025, the applicant said:

I AM APPLICANT IN THIS FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT PROCEEDING I HAVE MADE APPLICATION TO REVIEW THIS DECESION OF THE AAT FILE NO. (2203815)

1. I AM CITIZEN OF INDIA. MY APPLICATION FOR JUDICAIL REVIEW IS BASED ON THE MATERIAL ALREADY FILLED WITH DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND THE AAT. THE FACT IS IN THE APPLICATION ARE WITIHIN MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

2. MY APPLICATION IN PROCEEDING HON.COURT CONSIDER AND PARDON ME.MY EMAIL IS LOCKED SO I COULDN'T ATTENDED THE CALL OVER HEARING.I APPLOGISE FOR MY MISTAKE.I REQUEST TO HON COURT TO GRANT ME DATE.

3. I ALSO SAY THAT I HAVE VERY GOOD PROSEPECT TO WIN MY CASE

1. This was not a sufficient explanation to persuade the registrar to reinstate the application for judicial review. In the affidavit dated 17 November 2025 that accompanied the application for review of the same date, the applicant said:

1. I AM CITIZEN OF INDIA. MY APPLICATION FOR JUDI CAIL REVIEW IS BASED ON THE MATERIAL ALREADY FILLED WITH DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND THE AAT. THE FACT IS IN THE APPLICATION ARE WITIHIN MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

2. MY APPLICATION IN PROCEEDING HON.COURT CONSIDER AND PARDON ME. I MISSED THE COURT DATE. BUT HON .REGISTER DID NOT CONSIDER MY APPEAL I REQUEST TO HIGHER COURT TO CONSIDER MY APPEAL THAT ART MADE LEGAL ERROR IN MY DECESION.

1. The applicant appeared at the hearing today, self-represented. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages. When asked why he did not attend the telephone callover before the registrar in July 2025, the applicant claimed that he was unwell with a sore throat, cough and fever. The applicant did not produce a medical certificate to confirm this illness, and said he did not include his illness in previous affidavits because he did not have a medical certificate.
2. When considering whether to reinstate an application for judicial review that has been dismissed for non-appearance, the Court must consider whether it is in the interest of justice to do so (see FBS18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 196 at [50] per Flick, Robertson and Lee JJ). In assessing the interests of justice, the Court may consider the explanation for non-appearance, and the merits of the underlying application for judicial review, in particular, whether the application has reasonable prospects of success. See, for example, MZYEZ v the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 530 at [7], and Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCA 191 at [35]. In this case, the explanation for failing to appear at the callover is inadequate.
3. The explanations in the affidavits tendered in evidence have not been supplemented by any further evidence explaining why the applicant did not appear, or why he could not access his email account. He has also failed to explain how he became aware that his application for review had been dismissed or produce any credible evidence of any illness.
4. However, and more importantly, the prospects of success of the underlying application for judicial review are poor and have no reasonable prospects of success. In the application for judicial review, the applicant seeks to review a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 20 June 2023 (Decision), to affirm a decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant intended, genuinely, to stay temporarily in Australia.
5. In the application for judicial review filed with this Court on 11 July 2023, the applicant identifies the following grounds of review:
   1. I did not get justice from AAT.
   2. I requested to AAT to grant me visa but they denied and they dismiss my application. Currently I am doing my study and previously I also completed study from Melbourne College.
   3. I am doing study In Diploma in community service. I request to Hon. Court to give me justice.
6. None of these grounds identify any material jurisdictional error in the Decision. When asked by the Court today why the applicant claims that his claim for judicial review was strong, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal did not consider his history of study and his intention to study.
7. The applicant could not identify any other error or any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal, in the Decision.
8. On behalf of the Minister, Mr Sathiendrakumar relied on an outline of written submissions filed with the Court on 9 October 2025. The submissions on behalf of the Minister were simple and were that there was no adequate explanation of why the applicant failed to attend the callover, and no merit in the application for judicial review.
9. No prejudice was identified by the Minister if the application was to be reinstated, but the merits of the grounds of review did not warrant reinstatement in the interests of justice. In the Decision, the Tribunal considered the statutory framework and the criteria required for the grant of a visa in the Regulations and the guidelines provided by the Ministerial Direction.
10. The Tribunal considered the evidence provided by the applicant and the submissions made on his behalf. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's history of study, and his enrolment in a Diploma of Community Service. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's evidence established that he was a genuine student that intended to remain in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the applicant had a genuine career path, and also expressed concerns regarding the lack of academic progress of the applicant.
11. I have reviewed the Decision, as has the solicitor for the Minister, and there is no jurisdictional error apparent in the reasoning of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any reasonable merit or any prospects of success in the application for judicial review. It would not, in the circumstances of this case, be in the interest of justice to order reinstatement of the application for judicial review. The application for review of the registrar's decision is dismissed.
12. I will make the following orders.

1. The application for review dated 17 November 2025 is dismissed;
2. The decision of the registrar made 3 November 2025 is affirmed; and
3. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for review, fixed in the sum of $1,000.00.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.