CPS25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1699
•16 October 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
CPS25 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1699
File number(s): SYG 729 of 2025 Judgment of: JUDGE ZIPSER Date of judgment: 16 October 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of Administrative Review Tribunal refusing to grant protection visa – applicant absent from Court hearing – dismissal for non-appearance Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 476
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) rr 22.04, 24.04(a)
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 22 Date of hearing: 15 October 2025 Place: Parramatta Applicant: No appearance Solicitor for the Respondents: Sophie Edmondstone (MinterEllison Lawyers) ORDERS
SYG 729 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: CPS25
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE ZIPSER
DATE OF ORDER:
16 OCTOBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent is amended to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
2.The application is dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
3.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $6,200.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE ZIPSER
INTRODUCTION
On 6 March 2025, the applicant lodged an application for judicial review, pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) dated 3 February 2025. The ART affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing to grant the applicant a protection (subclass 866) visa under s 65 of the Act.
For the reasons that follow, the application to this Court is dismissed pursuant to r 22.04(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In December 2017, the applicant, a citizen of China, first arrived in Australia on a visitor visa.
On 19 December 2017, the applicant applied for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear a real risk of serious harm if he returned to China on the basis of harassment from government officials which caused the applicant to lose his source of income.
On 16 October 2020, a delegate of the first respondent made a decision refusing to grant the visa.
On 11 November 2020, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) (as it then was) for review of the delegate’s decision.
On 4 June 2024, the AAT wrote to the applicant and requested he complete a prehearing information form which included an opportunity to provide further information about his protection claims. On 6 June 2024, the applicant returned the prehearing information form but provided no further information concerning his claims for protection.
On 18 November 2024, the ART (which replaced the AAT in October 2024) invited the applicant to attend a hearing to give evidence and present arguments on 17 February 2025. On 12 December 2024, the applicant returned a completed response to hearing invitation form and consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers.
On 3 February 2025, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
Judicial review application and steps up to hearing on 15 October 2025
On 6 March 2025, the applicant filed in this Court an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The application contains five grounds. The applicant recorded in the application his email address for service (Applicant’s Email Address) and contact phone number (Applicant’s Phone Number).
On 6 August 2025, a registrar of the Court made procedural orders, including that, upon the matter being listed for hearing, the applicant file and serve at least 28 days before the hearing a written submission, any amended application, and any additional evidence on which he sought to rely.
On 12 August 2025, the registry of the Court sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant’s Email Address, stating the matter was listed for hearing on 15 October 2025.
On 1 October 2025, the first respondent filed a written submission.
On 1 October 2025, the first respondent’s solicitor sent an email to the applicant at the Applicant’s Email Address which included the date, time and place of the hearing, and added that if the applicant did not appear at the hearing, the first respondent may apply to have the matter dismissed for non-appearance.
On 7 October 2025, my associate sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant’s Email Address, reminding him of the date, time and place of the hearing.
The applicant did not file or serve any further materials before the hearing on 15 October 2025.
Hearing on 15 October 2025
The hearing on 15 October 2025 commenced at 10:15 am and concluded shortly before 10:25 am. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The matter was called outside the court room prior to the commencement of the hearing. Around 10:15 am my associate attempted to phone the applicant on the Applicant’s Phone Number. There was a voice message that the phone number was no longer in service.
At the hearing, Sophie Edmondstone from MinterEllison appeared for the first respondent. She requested that the application be dismissed under r 22.04 of the Rules.
Based on the materials referred to above, I am satisfied the applicant was aware of the date, time and place of the hearing on 15 October 2025. I agreed to Ms Edmondstone’s request to dismiss the application under r 22.04 of the Rules.
Re-instatement
If an event prevented the applicant from attending the hearing on 15 October 2025 and he is aggrieved that the application was dismissed in his absence, pursuant to r 24.04(a) of the Rules, he may apply to the Court to set aside the dismissal order and thereby re-instate the proceeding. If the applicant files and serves an application under r 24.04(a), he should file and serve an accompanying affidavit which provides evidence explaining the circumstances which prevented him from attending the hearing on 15 October 2025. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the applicant, a question may arise as to whether his conduct involves an abuse by the applicant of the process of the Court.
If the applicant is genuinely aggrieved that the application was dismissed in his absence and he files an application under r 24.04(a):
(a)He should also file and serve a written submission which seeks to identify a jurisdictional error in the ART’s decision. If the Court is not persuaded there is a jurisdictional error in the ART’s decision, there may be no utility in re-instating the proceeding.
(b)The Court will endeavour to list the re-instatement application promptly for hearing. The applicant must attend the hearing.
COSTS
Ms Edmondstone sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $6,200 which was less than the first respondent’s solicitor/client costs and less than the scale amount of $9,097.93. I consider this amount is reasonable. I will make this order.
I certify that the preceding twenty-two (22) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser. Associate:
Dated: 16 October 2025
0
0
2