Hsing (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2246

Hsing (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2246 (22 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Fu-An Hsing
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2400098

Tribunal:General Member D. Gordon
Place:Melbourne
Date: 22 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application.

Statement made on 22 September 2025 at 11:54am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – dismissal decision – failure to attend Tribunal hearing – applied for reinstatement – no logical explanation for lack of contact – no submissions or evidence – dismissal confirmed – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), ss 9, 56, 99
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 368B
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
The non-appearance at the hearing and initial dismissal

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 14 December 2023 to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 22 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.
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 reinstatement application
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.
By two emails of 19 September 2025, the review applicant gave the following reasons in support of their reinstatement:
Dear Naira,
My name is Fu-An Hsing, and my case number is 2400098.
On 17 July 2025, I received an email from my lawyer at Brightstone Legal, informing me that I had a very important hearing scheduled at the ART on 22 August 2025 regarding my visa review application. I confirmed with my lawyer that I would attend this hearing.
Unfortunately, on 17 August 2025, I lost my mobile phone at Perisher, NSW. I spent the entire day searching for it, as all my important information was stored on the device. I even left my friend’s contact details and a description of my phone at the customer reception in the hope that someone might return it.
When I returned to Sydney, I knew I needed to attend the ART hearing on 22 August 2025, so I attempted to access my email on my computer. However, I was unable to log in to my email account. Although I remembered both my email address and password, the system required additional verification through another device, which I could not provide without my lost phone.
I tried to seek assistance in every way possible, even by contacting customer service through another phone, but unfortunately, I was told that no support could be provided. I felt extremely helpless and distressed. I even purchased a new phone and attempted to regain access to my email, but I was unsuccessful. Because when I tried to log in the email account with the new phone, the system still asked me to get verification through old device.
Without email, I am not able to attend the hearing as I can’t find the weblink for video conference. What’s more, I am not able to contact my lawyer as I always contact her through email. As a result, I missed the scheduled hearing, which caused me great anxiety.
Thankfully, a few days later after the hearing, my friend later received a call from the Perisher customer reception, informing us that a tourist had found my phone. Finally I am able to regain access to my email and related correspondence. And I was able to reconnect with my lawyer, who informed me that I needed to submit a request for review by 19 August 2025.
I sincerely apologize for my failure to attend the hearing. I deeply regret this situation and take full responsibility for the disappointment caused.
I respectfully request the opportunity for my case to be reconsidered and for a new hearing to be scheduled.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
Sincerely,
Fu-An Hsing
Analysis of reinstatement request
The Tribunal has reviewed the above email of the review applicant of 19 September 2025, the contents of which are concerning to the Tribunal as follows.
The review applicant states that on 17 July 2025 their lawyer advised them of their Tribunal hearing to be held on 22 August 2025. However, that on 17 August 2025 they lost their phone at Perisher, NSW.
The Tribunal is concerned that between 17 August 2025 and 22 August 2025, the review applicant makes no reasonable attempt to contact their lawyer or the Tribunal to advise that their phone had been lost and to make alternate arrangements for the hearing. The Tribunal notes that the review applicant states that they could not contact their lawyer as they only contacted their lawyer by email, the details of which were on their lost phone.
The Tribunal does not accept this. The review applicant is responsible for their review and instructing their lawyer. There is no explanation provided as to why the review applicant could not simply look up their lawyer’s details on-line and contact their lawyer between 17 August 2025 and 22 August 2025 to advise them that their phone had been lost and to make arrangement for advising the Tribunal of alternate arrangements.
The review applicant could have easily located their lawyer’s address, telephone and email online or by visiting their physical address in Sydney between 17 August 2025 and 22 August 2025. There is no explanation as to why this was not done. The review applicant’s position that they only contacted with their lawyer via email is not accepted.
The review applicant also says that the video hearing link was on their phone and hence they could not attend the hearing. However, if they had attended to or made contact with their lawyer, their lawyer was in receipt of the hearing invitation with the link from the Tribunal and arrangements could have been made to attend the hearing on 22 August 2025.
The Tribunal is also concerned that on the day of the hearing being the 22 August 2025, there was no email or telephone or other communication from the review applicant’s lawyer that their client had not been in contact or that no instructions were received from their client. The review applicant is represented by lawyers. If in the days leading up to the hearing on 22 August 2025 there was no contact from the review applicant, this should have been attended to or at least advised by the lawyers on the day of the hearing.
Notably of concern, the review applicant’s lawyers did not advise the Tribunal on or before 22 August 2025 that there was no contact from the review applicant if this was the case. The lawyers simply allowed the Tribunal to ready and start the hearing on 22 August 2025. This is a professional discourtesy and a waste of Tribunal resources. There is no explanation from the review applicant’s lawyers why the Tribunal hearing was allowed to proceed on 22 August 2025 in these circumstances.
A further concern is that the review applicant now says that customer service at Perisher, NSW had located their phone, and they then managed to contact their lawyer who advised that a reinstatement request needed to be submitted by 19 September 2025.
The review applicant does not provide any specific details of when and how their phone was located at Perisher, NSW. No formal communication from customer service or other verifiable details from Perisher, NSW is provided to the Tribunal to confirm this.
Notably of concern, the review applicant’s lawyers do not apply for reinstatement. This has been left solely to the review applicant. This is concerning to the Tribunal. The review applicant is represented by lawyers. It is for the lawyers to apply for reinstatement and to communicate with the Tribunal. Yet the lawyers do not provide any written correspondence to support the reinstatement or to confirm the contents of the review applicant’s above email in so far as to relates to or refers to the lawyers. There has been complete silence from the review applicant’s lawyers with respect to the reinstatement. No explanation has been provided to the Tribunal as to why the review applicant is personally seeking reinstatement when they are represented by lawyers.
At this juncture, the Tribunal notes that s 56(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) states that a party to the proceeding in the Tribunal and any person representing the party must use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to achieve the objective in s 9. Notably s 9 therein includes an objective of resolving matters quickly. Both the review applicant and their lawyers’ unexplained lack of contacting the Tribunal on or before the hearing on 22 August 2025 and of the lawyers’ lack of any contact with the Tribunal after the hearing or for this reinstatement runs contrary to this objective.
The Tribunal does not accept that the review applicant’s lawyers could not be contacted prior to the hearing of 22 August 2025. This could have easily been done by locating the lawyer’s details on-line, by telephone, or simply visiting their office in Sydney.
The Tribunal does not accept the lack of correspondence from the review applicant’s lawyers and silence permitting the hearing to proceed on 22 August 2025. No phone or email was sent by the lawyers to the Tribunal on or before 22 August 2025 advising that the review applicant was not contactable, or that no instructions were received, or that the hearing should be adjourned or postponed.
Oddly, if the review applicant had lost their phone, it remains a mystery as to whether their lawyer tried to contact them in the days leading up to the hearing and whether such lack of contact would have raised concerns that the review applicant was not answering their phone which would have promoted further action to either contact the review applicant or advising the Tribunal. No explanation is provided for whether the lawyers did contact the review applicant prior to or on the day of the hearing on 22 August 2025.
The Tribunal does not accept that the review applicant could not contact the Tribunal themselves on or before 22 August 2025. The Tribunal is a national and well-known institution with a website and multiple contact points including a physical registry in Sydney.
There is no explanation or reason given as to why the review applicant could not call the Tribunal or simply physically attend to the Tribunal registry in Sydney on or before 22 August 2025 and explain their situation.
There is no explanation or reason as to why the lawyers could not contact the Tribunal on or before 22 August 2025 advising that the review applicant was not contactable or seeking a postponement.
There is no explanation or reason as to why the review applicant is making this reinstatement request personally when they are represented by lawyers.
The Tribunal also notes that this review deals with a student visa cancellation. This is a serious matter. However, looking at the Tribunal file, no submissions or evidence was filed in the lead up to the hearing set down for 22 August 2025. There has been a lack of engagement with addressing the merits of the review.
The Tribunal does not accept the reasons and explanations contained in the review applicant’s email of 19 September 2025 as noted in the above concerns and analysis.
The Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to reinstate 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.
Representative for the Applicant: Ms Xuan Luo