Federal Court of Australia

CCS23 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1172

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The name of the first respondent is changed to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.  

2.    The appeal is dismissed under rule 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). 

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

4.    The first respondent email a copy of these orders and the reasons for judgment to the appellant using the appellant’s email address identified in the Notice of Appeal within 7 days of these orders. 

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript)

1    This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (the PJ) dismissing the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, to refuse the appellant’s application for a permanent Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa. For the reasons that I will set out below, the appeal should be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

2    The appellant is a citizen of Malaysia (PJ [1]). He arrived in Australia in May 2017, holding an Electronic Travel Authority (Class UD) (subclass 601) visa. On 9 June 2017, he lodged an application for a protection visa (PJ [2]). The appellant was self-represented before the primary judge (PJ [28]).

3    By a notice of appeal filed with this Court on 15 June 2024, the appellant advanced four grounds of appeal alleging error in the primary judge’s decision. Those were stated in the notice of appeal as:

1.    The Tribunal failed to consider all my claims and all materials related to my application.

2.    The Tribunal retained too much discretionary power to dismiss my requests, which showed actual bias.

3.    The department failed to provide me a chance to better understand my claims, which failed to follow the necessary procedures.

4.    There was bias in the decision of the judge when considering my grounds for review application.

4    The appellant also filed an affidavit on that date annexing a photograph of the orders of the primary judge.

APPELLANT’S NON-APPEARANCE

5    Rule 36.75(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules) relevantly provides:

36.75 Absence of party

(1)    If a party is absent when an appeal is called on for hearing, the opposing party may apply to the Court for an order that:

(a)    if the absent party is the appellant:

(i)    the appeal be dismissed…

6    I agree with the Minister that the appeal should be dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of Rules because of the appellant’s failure to attend the hearing on 11 August 2026.

7    In addition to the appellant’s non-appearance at the hearing, I have regard to the following matters:

(1)    On 28 May 2026, the National Migration Team of the Court emailed the parties advising that the appeal had been listed for hearing on Tuesday, 11 August 2026 at 2.15 pm AWST at the Peter Durack Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 1 Victoria Avenue, Perth for half a day. This email relevantly stated:

The courtroom allocated for this matter will be displayed on a noticeboard at the Federal Court on the day of the hearing or is available on the daily court lists from late in the afternoon the day before the hearing. Please note that orders determining the matter (including an order as to costs) may be made in your absence if you or your lawyer do not attend court at the specified time.

(2)    The Migration Team sent that email to the email address provided by the appellant in his notice of appeal.

(3)    On 14 July 2026, the Minister’s solicitors, the Australian Government Solicitor, sent to the appellant, by way of service, a sealed copy of the appeal book and written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister. That letter also stated:

In the event you or a legal representative on your behalf do not appear at the date, time and place above [these details were included in a table immediately above this paragraph], the first respondent may seek an order that your appeal be dismissed with costs.

(4)    Pursuant to orders made by a Registrar of this Court on 10 July 2024, the appellant was required to file and serve a written outline of submissions no later than 10 business days before the hearing date, being 28 July 2026. The appellant did not file any written submissions.

(5)    When the appeal was called on for hearing on 11 August 2026, the appellant did not appear. At my direction, the court officer called the matter outside the courtroom three times after which there was still no appearance by the appellant. The matter was then stood down for a short period to enable the Minister’s solicitor, with the assistance of an interpreter, to attempt to contact the appellant using the telephone number provided in the appellant’s notice of appeal.

(6)    When the court resumed, the Minister’s solicitor asked that the interpreter be allowed to recount the conversation which took place in the presence of the Minister’s solicitor, and I permitted that course to take place. Ms Chong, who assisted the court today as the interpreter, told the Court that when the telephone was answered, someone who did not identify themselves told her that they had got the wrong number, the unidentified person had no matter in the Federal Court, that they were not known by the pseudonym CCS23, and concluded the conversation by saying that they were very busy and they had to go. Ms Chong then told the Court that that person then hung up the telephone.

(7)    The final matter that I note is that the appellant may apply to the Court for an order setting aside or varying the orders made: see r 36.75(2) of the Rules.

8    Having regard to those matters (together with the appellant’s failure to attend the hearing on 11 August 2026), it is my view that the appeal should be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

9    For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed pursuant to r 36.75(1)(a)(i) of the Rules. The appellant should pay the first respondent’s costs for a fixed sum of $2,500.

Associate:

Dated:    26 August 2026