Federal Court of Australia

DQT22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 292

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Pursuant to Item 10 in Schedule 16 of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth), the Administrative Review Tribunal is substituted for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as the second respondent.

2.    The appeal is dismissed pursuant to r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

3.    The appellant must pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $2,500.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(edited from the transcript)

JACKSON J:

1    This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Division 2, made on 8 August 2024, dismissing an application by the appellant for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as it then was.

2    On 17 October 2022, the Tribunal affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) to refuse to grant a protection visa to the appellant. The appellant is a citizen of Vietnam, and for reasons that need not be described in this decision, claims to fear harm on his return to that country.

3    The appeal is listed for hearing today, but there is no appearance at the hearing by the appellant. That is so after the court officer called outside the courtroom for him. The Minister has therefore moved for an order dismissing the appeal under rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). That rule relevantly provides that if a party is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing then, if the absent party is the appellant, the opposing party may apply for an order that the appeal be dismissed.

4    It is relevant to note that the appellant has been informed of today's listing date on three occasions in communications from the Court to the appellant at his nominated email address for service. That occurred first when the Court's Migration Team initially advised the parties of the listing date, in an email on 15 January 2026. And on two occasions since then, on 11 February 2026 and 5 March 2026, my associate has had occasion to reiterate the listing details to the parties in emails. On the most recent of those occasions, the parties were expressly advised that if the appellant did not attend the hearing, that could result in the appeal being dismissed in his absence.

5    In addition, counsel for the Minister has handed up a letter from the Australian Government Solicitor to the appellant dated 19 February 2026 enclosing the appeal book and submissions, which, once again, confirmed the time and date of listing.

6    The appellant did not file any written submissions by the time fixed for that step in the orders of the Court and has provided no reason to the Court as to why he might not be able to attend today's hearing.

7    In the circumstances it is not appropriate to reach any definitive conclusion about the merits of the appeal, but it is worth noting that the notice of appeal advances four grounds, only one of which was put to the primary judge, meaning that the appellant would need the leave of the court to advance the other three grounds for the first time. In addition to that hurdle, having reviewed the ground that does correspond to a point that was put to the primary judge, the appellant has failed in that ground to identify any error made by her Honour in her treatment of the matter.

8    In those circumstances, and given the appellant's unexplained absence at the hearing today, it is appropriate to make the orders the Minister seeks. There will therefore be an order dismissing the appeal under rule 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules.

9    The Minister seeks costs fixed in the sum of $2,500. In view of the short form cost allowances in item 15.2 of Schedule 3 to the rules, that is a reasonable amount, and an order fixing costs in that amount will be made.

10    It is appropriate to note that since the appeal has been dismissed under rule 36.75(1), rule 36.75(2) entitles the appellant to apply to the Court for an order setting the dismissal aside and effectively seeking to have the appeal reinstated.

Associate:

Dated:    19 March 2026