2312159 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1350

2312159 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1350 (29 MAY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2312159

Tribunal:Clyde Cosentino
Place:Brisbane
Date: 29 May 2025
Decision:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Statement made on 29 May 2025 at 2:55pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Fiji – dismissal decision – failure to attend Tribunal hearing – family bereavement – dismissal confirmed – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 99
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 368
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 28 July 2023 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 15 May 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.
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.
The review applicant applied for reinstatement of the application within 28 days after receiving notice of the decision. For the following reasons, the Tribunal did not consider it appropriate to reinstate the application.
In making this finding, the Tribunal has considered the reasons for the review applicant not appearing at a hearing of his matter by video conference using Microsoft Teams on 15 May 2025 at 9:30am (QLD time).
The Tribunal finds that the review applicant was properly notified to appear before the Tribunal by video conference using Microsoft Teams on 15 May 2025 at 9:30am (QLD time). The Tribunal has considered that the hearing notice received by the review applicant stated that if he 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 hearing notice stated that to attend the hearing by video conference using Microsoft Teams, the review applicant was invited to join the hearing at least 15 minutes before the hearing start time with the link provided (he was also provided with a unique Meeting ID and Passcode). Detailed instructions on how to attend the hearing were included in the hearing notice. The hearing notice also stated that if he did not attend the hearing and an adjournment was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the review applicant to appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also sent SMS reminders about the hearing 5 business days and one business day before the scheduled hearing.
The Tribunal has considered the review applicant’s email to the Tribunal on 14 May 2025 (at 9:41 pm – the night before the hearing) which stated as follows:
Subsequent to the above subject matter [referring to the Administrative Review Tribunal Hearing] , I wish to apologize for not attending my tribunal hearing schedule for tomorrow, 15 May, 2025 as I am awaiting response from Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration department for my Spouse Visa application which I have lodged and secondly, the death of my aunty back in Fiji which has caused financial burden to my pre – plan trip to attend tribunal.

Again I wish to apologize sincerely for any inconvenience this may cause.
The Tribunal finds, based on the review applicant’s own email written just prior to the hearing, that his reasons for not appearing before the scheduled hearing was because he was “awaiting response from Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration department for [his] Spouse Visa application which [he] [had] lodged” and because “the death of [his] aunty back in Fiji … has caused financial burden to [his] pre – plan trip to attend [the] tribunal”. However, the Tribunal finds that the review applicant has not provided any evidence or supporting documents at all to indicate that he was in Fiji at the time attending the funeral of his aunt. He only refers to the “financial burden” to his pre-planned trip to attend at the Tribunal. There is no evidence whatsoever to support why he was unable to appear at a scheduled video hearing which he was properly notified about. He provides no evidence at all as to how waiting for his spouse visa application (which he previously lodged) prevented him from appearing at a scheduled video hearing which he was properly notified about.
The Tribunal finds that he did not appear at the hearing by video conference using Microsoft Teams, even after he had previously requested, and was granted, a video hearing, which had been subsequently set down for 15 May 2025 at 9:30am (QLD time) and had been given the appropriate notice about the hearing. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant’s email (sent just the night before the video hearing) clearly informed the Tribunal that he would not be attending for the reasons given above. The Tribunal finds on this evidence that the review applicant had pre-determined that he would not be attending the video hearing on 15 May 2025 at 9:30am (QLD time). The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was advised in the hearing notice that a Tribunal Officer would contact him to arrange a test closer to the hearing date to ensure that the connection was working. On 8 May 2025, a Tribunal Officer attempted to call the review applicant on two occasions to undertake a test on the video conference to ensure that all was in order, but the review applicant did not answer his mobile. The Tribunal is also satisfied that two separate SMS reminders were also sent to the review applicant about the hearing.
The Tribunal does not find the review applicant’s reasons, namely “awaiting response from Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration department for [his] Spouse Visa application which [he] [had] lodged” and “the death of [his] aunty back in Fiji which has caused financial burden to [his] pre – plan trip to attend [the] tribunal”, reasonably explain in any way his actual failure to appear by video hearing on 15 May 2025 at 9:30am (QLD time), as he was notified to do.
The Tribunal has considered the review applicant’s written reinstatement request. The written reinstatement request was received by email at the Tribunal on 27 May 2025, with 5 attachments. A further written reinstatement request was received by the Tribunal on 28 May 2025, which was an identical email to the one sent on 27 May 2025 with identical attachments (plus one extra attachment). Both emails stated: “Please see attached letter requesting reinstatement and reschedule request for my hearing including supporting documents”. The attachments are as follows:
·A letter to the Tribunal from the review applicant dated 27 May 2025 stating:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I’m writing in response to the letter sent on the 15th of May via email, advising me of a dismissal due to reasons presented in the letters attached.
After careful consideration regarding the letters, I have collected and attached evidence of supporting documents regarding my absent of my nonattendance to those days that my review was scheduled for.
I’m submitting this letter requesting to reinstate my case for another review at your next available hearing.
I sincerely hope that you will take into consideration of my non-attendance in the tribunal.
I am willing to attend the next tribunal hearing should you think of having another soon via teams.
·Letter from [Leader A], “Village Headman”, [Village 1], Fiji, stating:
This letter is to confirm that [the applicant] was unable to attend he’ (sic) short course as he was financially strained due to he’s (sic) financial contribution towards his aunts funeral [aunt’s name] on Wednesday (14/05/2025).
·Medical Discharge Summary from [Health Service 1] for a [Ms A]”. The discharge date was 14 November 2024.
·Medical Discharge Summary from [Health Service 1] for a [Ms A]”. The discharge date was 8 January 2025.
·Medical letter from [Health Service 2] relating to [Ms A variant], and dated 3 April 2025. The medical letter states:
[Ms A variant] [date of birth given] has been receiving ongoing would care in our clinic since 10.1.25. Due to complex health factors, [she] has been unable to driver (sic) herself to her appointments. Her partner has been providing transport support for her to attend health related appointments.
·Medical letter from [Doctor A] relating solely to [Ms A variant’s] medical condition. The letter is dated 4 September 2024. The letter makes no mention at all about the review applicant. It is a letter of support for NDIS for [Ms A variant].
The Tribunal has considered his application for reinstalment and the covering email which states: “Please see attached letter requesting reinstatement and reschedule request for my hearing including supporting documents”. It has also considered the attached letter and the supporting documents as part of his application for reinstatement. Having regard to the application for reinstatement in its entirety, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to reconsider the application for the following reasons.
The review applicant has referenced in his letter that the evidence of supporting documents is relevant to his “nonattendance to those days that [his] review was scheduled for”. Having considered this, the Tribunal finds that all the evidence provided by the applicant are not relevant at all to his reason that he could not attend because he was “awaiting response from Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration department for [his] Spouse Visa application which [he] [had] lodged”, which was one of the two reasons given initially by the review applicant for not attending the scheduled hearing on 15 May 2025. Therefore, in relation to his reason of “awaiting response from Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration department for [his] Spouse Visa application which [he] [had] lodged” the Tribunal gives no weight at all to any of the documents as it related to this particular reason.
The review applicant has referenced in his letter that the evidence of supporting documents is relevant to his “nonattendance to those days that [his] review was scheduled for”. Having considered this, the Tribunal gives no weight at all to the documentary evidence as it relates to the review applicant’s second reason for not appearing at the hearing, namely “the death of [his] aunty back in Fiji which has caused financial burden to [his] pre – plan trip to attend [the] tribunal”. The only document provided by the review applicant relevant to this reason is the letter from a [Leader A] confirming that the review applicant is unable to attend his “short course” as he “was financially constrained due to [his] financial contribution towards his aunt’s funeral…”. The Tribunal gives no weight to this letter given that it refers to the applicant not being able to attend “[his] short course” and not a Tribunal hearing, given that it does not state at all that the review applicant was present at his aunt’s funeral, and given that it provides no explanation at all as to how being “financially strained” would be a reason for failing to attend a video hearing on 15 May 2025 at 9:30am (QLD time).
The review applicant has referenced in his letter that the evidence of supporting documents is relevant to his “nonattendance to those days that [his] review was scheduled for”. Having considered this, the Tribunal gives no weight at all to the documentary evidence as it relates to the several documents attached relating to a [Ms A]. The review applicant provides no evidence or submissions as to why these medical reports are relevant to him, and how they are relevant to him not appearing at the hearing on 15 May 2025 at 9:30am (QLD time). The Tribunal also has considered it relevant that each of the medical reports provided are not events that occurred on the day of the hearing. Thus:
- One of the documents provided, namely the Medical Discharge Summary from [Health Service 1], states that the discharge date of [Ms A] was 14 November 2024.
- The next document provided, namely the Medical Discharge Summary from [Health Service 1], states that the discharge date of [Ms A] was 8 January 2025.
- The Medical letter from [Health Service 2] relating to [Ms A variant], was dated 3 April 2025.
- The medical letter from [Doctor A] relating solely to [Ms A variant’s] medical condition. was dated 4 September 2024.
The Tribunal finds that all these documents were written prior to the hearing, were not written in support of why the applicant did not appear at the hearing, do not relate at all to the applicant, and do not state in any way why these reports about a third party is relevant to the applicant not attending his hearing on 15 May 2025. The Tribunal has had regard to the medical report from [Health Service 2] stating, among other things, “[h]er partner has been providing transport support for her to attend health related appointments”. However, there has been no evidence presented to the Tribunal in the review applicant’s reinstatement request that that this was what prevented him from appearing at the video hearing on 15 May 2025. The Tribunal gives no weight to this letter given that it was written on 3 April 2025 when the actual hearing date was 15 May 2025, and it does not state at all that this will prevent the review applicant from attending the video hearing on 15 May 2025. The Tribunal, therefore, gives these documents no weight at all as they relate to [Ms A], who is not a party to these proceedings, nor does it give any weight to them as they might relate to the review applicant not appearing at the hearing scheduled for 15 May 2025.
Having regard to the application for reinstatement in its entirety, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to reconsider the application.
The decision to dismiss the application is confirmed. In these circumstances, the decision under review is taken to be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.