Plotitsyn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2001] FCA 1317


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Plotitsyn v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1317

Federal Court Rules O 32 r 2(1)(c)

GENNADY PLOTITSYN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 1037 OF 2001

STONE J
13 SEPTEMBER 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1037 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GENNADY PLOTITSYN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 SEPTEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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 1037 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

GENNADY PLOTITSYN
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

STONE J

DATE:

13 SEPTEMBER  2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation who arrived in Australia on 2 October 1999. He and his wife applied for a protection (class XA) visas on 9 November 1999. Their application was refused by a delegate (“Delegate”) of the respondent on 16 December 1999 and the Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) handed down a decision affirming the Delegate’s decision on 13 June 2001. On 6 July 2001, the applicant commenced proceedings in this Court seeking review of the Tribunal’s decision under Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”).

  2. The hearing of the application was set down for 16 August 2001. On that date, the applicant sought an adjournment to enable him to finalise the preparation of his case. That request was granted. The hearing was adjourned until today and various other pre-trial orders were made. 

  3. At the hearing today the applicant did not appear. The respondent has led evidence that establishes to my satisfaction that the applicant left Australia on 25 August 2001.  Attached to the affidavit of Ms Susan Goodman affirmed on 12 September 2001 is a handwritten note addressed to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, signed by the applicant and dated 25 August 2001. It states:

    “I, Gennady Plotitsyn withdraw my application for protection visa and leaving Australia permanently, and going back to Europe…”

  4. In the circumstances it is appropriate to accede to the respondent’s request that I dismiss the application in accordance with O 32 r 2(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules. The application is therefore 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 Stone.

Associate:

Dated:            13 September  2001

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing: 13 September 2001
Date of Judgment: 13 September 2001
Details
AGLC
Plotitsyn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1317
Case
[2001] FCA 1317
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Plotitsyn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs involved the applicant, Plotitsyn, seeking judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant challenged the Minister's decision to cancel his visa on the grounds of non-compliance with character requirements under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa was lawful and justified under the Migration Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Minister's assessment of the applicant's character was reasonable and based on appropriate considerations. This involved examining whether there was a sufficient basis for the Minister to conclude that the applicant was a person of bad character.

The court, in its judgment, held that the Minister's decision was lawful and appropriately reasoned. It found that the Minister had correctly identified and considered the relevant factors indicating that the applicant did not meet the character requirements. The court was satisfied that the Minister's assessment was based on a thorough review of the evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review. In addition, the court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

STONE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STONE J

Full text does not contain this section.