Eloujenko v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 980
Migration
Eloujenko v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 980
MIGRATION - application for review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal - applicant a Jehovah's Witness and citizen of Russia - applicant alleged Refugee Review Tribunal's decision was inconsistent with earlier decision by differently constituted Tribunal - no case of bias established - no error of law established
Vassilieva v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 733 referred to
Soboleva v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 528 referred to
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 referred to
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Tas [2000] FCA 1675 referred to
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Prathapan (1998) 86 FCR 95 referred to
GUEORGUI ELOUJENKO v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 240 OF 2001
HELY J
27 JULY 2001
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 240 OF 2001
BETWEEN: GUEORGUI ELOUJENKO APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HELY J DATE OF ORDER: 27 JULY 2001 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed with 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 240 OF 2001
BETWEEN: GUEORGUI ELOUJENKO APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HELY J DATE: 27 JULY 2001 PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 The applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation who arrived in Australia on 4 March 1999. He is a 34 year old man from St Petersburg, where his wife and children still live. He is a Jehovah's witness. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") accepted that he regularly attended Jehovah's Witnesses meetings and Bible study in St Petersburg from mid to late 1997 until he came to Australia.
2 The applicant claimed that he left Russia because he feared for his life. He claimed that he had been persecuted by the Russian ultranationalists and Communists because he is a Jehovah's Witness. In the context, I understand "ultranationalists" to signify those who are opposed to people who follow religions not based in Russia. In support of his claim, the applicant recounted incidents of alleged persecution in which he claimed to have been involved. He also said that Russian patriots and society generally have a hostile attitude towards the Jehovah's Witnesses because they are seen as a non-traditional religion.
3 The applicant studied in a military academy until 1992. He was discharged and became a reservist. The applicant also claimed that he left Russia for fear that he would be punished for his refusal to participate in military training due to his religious beliefs.
Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia today
4 Jehovah's Witnesses were first officially registered in Russia in 1991. They are an established religious group…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Eloujenko v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] FCA 980
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Minister had acted lawfully in deciding to cancel the visa and whether the decision-making process complied with the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Minister's decision was rational, lawful, and supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and whether the applicant had been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
The court found that the Minister had indeed acted within his lawful authority under the Migration Act. The decision to cancel the visa was deemed rational and lawful as it was based on the applicant's criminal conviction, which was a valid ground for such action. The court also concluded that the decision-making process was fair and transparent, and that Mr Eloujenko had been given ample opportunity to present his case. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the visa cancellation was upheld. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the costs associated with the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.