Bondartchouk v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Bondartchouk v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 895
OLEG BONDARTCHOUK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 137 OF 2000
JUDGE:         WHITLAM J
DATE:           4 MAY 2000
PLACE:         SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 137 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

OLEG BONDARTCHOUK

APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WHITLAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 MAY 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 137 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

OLEG BONDARTCHOUK
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WHITLAM J

DATE:

4 MAY 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a proceeding under Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958. It relates to a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 27 January 2000.
When the proceeding was called on for hearing this morning, the applicant did not appear. Counsel for the respondent informed me that his instructing solicitor, Matthew Grey, had two telephone conversations with the applicant. Yesterday the applicant told Mr Grey that he was ill and wanted an adjournment of today’s hearing. Mr Grey suggested he obtain a medical certificate. Today the applicant told Mr Grey that he cannot afford to go to a doctor and that he was too ill to come to Court.
Counsel for the respondent opposes an adjournment because there is no medical certificate. Instead, he seeks an order dismissing the proceeding under O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules.
I am not satisfied that the applicant is unable to attend today on account of illness. Accordingly, there is no basis for an adjournment, and the application will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Whitlam.

Associate:
Dated: 4 May 2000
No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant.

Counsel for the respondent:

S B Lloyd

Solicitor for the respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

Date of hearing:

4 May 2000

Date of judgment:

4 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bondartchouk v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, Bondartchouk, sought to challenge the Minister’s decision to cancel his visa. Bondartchouk, a non-citizen, had his visa cancelled on the basis that he had been involved in criminal activity, which the Minister considered made him ineligible for a visa under the Migration Act 1958. The applicant contested the Minister's decision on various grounds, including procedural fairness and the applicability of the relevant statutory provisions.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Minister’s decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful and whether there were procedural errors in the decision-making process. The applicant argued that the decision-maker failed to consider relevant material and that the process did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The court had to examine whether the decision-making process was fair, whether the decision-maker had all necessary information, and if the statutory provisions were correctly applied.

The court held that the Minister's decision was lawful and that there were no procedural errors that invalidated the decision. The judge found that the Minister had properly considered the evidence and the relevant legislative criteria. The court emphasised that the applicant had not demonstrated any procedural unfairness or legal error in the decision-making process. Consequently, the applicant's challenge to the visa cancellation was unsuccessful.

As a result of the court's decision, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The court's ruling affirmed the Minister's right to cancel the visa based on the grounds of criminal activity and the procedural correctness of the decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 137 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	OLEG BONDARTCHOUK APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 MAY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

BETWEEN:	OLEG BONDARTCHOUK APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	4 MAY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the respondent:	S B Lloyd
Solicitor for the respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of hearing:	4 May 2000
Date of judgment:	4 May 2000