Background
Ms. Hongxiu Liu applied for a Partner (Temporary) visa (Subclass 820) sponsored by her partner. On 24 October 2017, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s refusal of her visa application, finding that Liu no longer satisfied the relationship requirement and had failed to provide a personal statutory declaration evidencing family violence as required by the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Although Liu was represented by a solicitor at the Tribunal hearing on 27 April 2017, where the evidence requirement was explicitly raised, and her solicitor submitted post-hearing written submissions, Liu never provided the mandatory statutory declaration.
Liu applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision, but the Federal Circuit and Family Court refused to reinstate her application. Liu then sought leave to appeal that refusal. Her leave application was listed for hearing on 23 March 2026. The Court sent three emails to Liu’s nominated email address: on 12 December 2025 notifying of the hearing, on 6 March 2026 reminding her and warning that orders could be made in her absence, and on 20 March 2026 providing a Microsoft Teams link for remote attendance. Liu failed to attend the hearing and the Court dismissed her application. On 1 May 2026, Liu applied to set aside that dismissal and reinstate her leave application.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Perry held that Liu’s reinstatement application should be dismissed on two grounds. First, Liu provided no acceptable explanation for missing the 23 March 2026 hearing. Liu claimed she received no notification, but the Court had sent three emails to her nominated email address, and Liu bore the responsibility to update her contact information with the Court and check her email correspondence. While this alone might not have been determinative, the central issue was whether the underlying leave application had any reasonable prospects of success.
Second, and more significantly, Liu’s proposed grounds of appeal to challenge the Circuit Court’s refusal to reinstate her judicial review application entirely lacked merit. The Tribunal correctly required a personal statutory declaration from Liu herself (the alleged victim) to substantiate a family violence claim, as mandated by regulations 1.23(9)(c), 1.24, and 1.25(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Although Liu provided supporting evidence from a psychologist and social worker opining that her presentation was consistent with domestic violence, these third-party opinions could not substitute for the mandatory personal statutory declaration. The Tribunal advised Liu of the evidence requirement, gave her an opportunity to provide it after the hearing, and properly found that absent this mandatory evidence, a valid family violence claim could not be made. Liu’s other grounds—challenging a “dob-in” letter (which the Tribunal placed no weight on and Liu had opportunity to address), making a bare assertion that the decision was “not in the best interests of justice,” and attacking the brevity of the Tribunal’s reasons—similarly lacked merit.
Key Takeaways
- Applicants must actively update contact information with the court and maintain awareness of proceedings; failure to do so provides no acceptable explanation for missing hearings even when notification is sent.
- The personal statutory declaration requirement for family violence claims in visa applications is mandatory under the Migration Regulations; supporting evidence from third parties, including licensed psychologists and social workers, cannot satisfy this requirement.
- Judicial review of migration decisions is limited to examining whether the decision-maker made a legal (jurisdictional) error; courts cannot review the merits of the visa application itself or substitute their judgment for the decision-maker’s.
- Legal representation at administrative proceedings does not excuse failure to comply with mandatory regulatory requirements or preclude adverse consequences from non-compliance.
Why It Matters
This decision provides critical guidance for visa applicants claiming family violence. Migration law imposes a strict, mandatory requirement that such claims be evidenced by a personal statutory declaration from the alleged victim. The fact that an applicant is represented by a solicitor, that the evidence requirement is raised during the proceeding, and that supportive professional opinions are available does not lower this threshold. Applicants and their representatives must understand that this is a non-negotiable regulatory requirement, not a procedural technicality that can be overcome through other evidence.
The judgment also reinforces the importance of maintaining current contact information with courts and responding to official communications about scheduled hearings. Courts will not entertain reinstatement applications on the basis that an applicant missed a hearing due to failure to receive notice when that notice was properly sent to the contact address on file. Additionally, the decision demonstrates that even where an applicant has been wholly unsuccessful in prior proceedings and has failed to attend a hearing, a court will nevertheless examine whether reinstatement would serve any purpose by asking whether the underlying application has any reasonable prospects of success—if it does not, reinstatement will be denied.