BJJ18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship - Judicial Review Dismissal

Australia Federal Court Latest Judgments

Filed March 26th, 2026

Detected March 26th, 2026

Summary

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal in BJJ18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The applicant failed to appear at the hearing and had not filed required documents, leading to the dismissal and an order for costs. The decision affirms the dismissal of judicial review proceedings related to a protection visa application.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This judgment concerns the dismissal of an application for an extension of time to appeal against interlocutory orders made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The appellant, BJJ18, failed to file the application for leave to appeal within the prescribed 14-day period, being 75 days late. Furthermore, the appellant defaulted on multiple procedural requirements, including failing to file a draft notice of appeal and written submissions, and crucially, failing to appear at the hearing of the application for extension of time.

The court dismissed the application due to the appellant's defaults and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. The first respondent was awarded costs fixed at $3,000. This case highlights the importance of adhering to court rules and procedural timelines, particularly in immigration matters where timely action and appearance are critical. Failure to comply can lead to dismissal of proceedings and adverse cost orders.

What to do next

Review court orders and filing deadlines for immigration-related appeals.
Ensure timely appearance at scheduled court hearings.
Comply with all procedural requirements for filing notices of appeal and submissions.

Penalties

Applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,000.

Source document (simplified)

Original Word Document (74.6 KB) Federal Court of Australia

BJJ18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 362

| Appeal from: | BJJ18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 197 |
| | |
| File number: | NSD 552 of 2023 |
| | |
| Judgment of: | STEWART J |
| | |
| Date of judgment: | 12 March 2026 |
| | |
| Date of publication of reasons: | 26 March 2026 |
| | |
| Catchwords: | MIGRATION – protection visa application – refused – decision affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – application for judicial review dismissed by a Registrar for non-appearance at a callover – application to reinstate judicial review proceedings dismissed by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Div 2) – application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal – default of appearance – application dismissed |
| | |
| Legislation: | Federal Court of Australia Act 197 6 (Cth) ss 24(1)(d) and 24(1A)

Appellant | |
| AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent | |

The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
The proceeding be dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,000.

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)

STEWART J:

1 This is an application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the orders of a judge of Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The orders were interlocutory in nature. That is why the applicant requires leave to appeal from them: Federal Court of Australia Act 197 6 (Cth) ss 24(1)(d) and 24(1A).

2 The primary judge’s orders were made on 17 March 2023. Any application for leave to appeal was required to have been filed within 14 days: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 35.14(2) and 35.13(a). The application was not filed until 14 June 2023, which was 75 days late. That is a considerable period of time.

3 The applicant is in default in many respects. She was ordered on 20 June 2023 to file a draft notice of appeal within 10 days of that date, and written submissions no later than 10 business days before the hearing. She did neither. She is also in default of appearance on the hearing of her application. In that regard, on 19 December 2025, the applicant was advised by email at the email address given by her in her application for the receipt of communications in the matter, that the matter was listed for hearing at 10:15am on 12 March 2026, that is, today. Subsequent email communications were also sent to her at that address. Neither the Court nor the first respondent has received any response.

4 I will therefore dismiss the application because of the applicant’s defaults.

5 In any event, the application would appear to have no merit. The delay is not explained other than for the reason that the applicant was not aware of the Court’s appeal processes. That is not an adequate explanation. There is also no apparent merit in her proposed appeal. The application shall also be dismissed on that basis.

| I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stewart. |
Associate:

Dated: 26 March 2026

Top