Shumilov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2002] FCAFC 1


Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 1

Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 36

NOTE: CHANGES TO THE MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION (MNC)

The Federal Court adopted a new medium neutral citation (FCAFC) for Full Court judgments effective from 1 January 2002.  Single Judge judgments will not be affected and will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.

The transitional arrangements are as follows:

·All Full Court judgments delivered prior to 1 January 2002 will retain the FCA medium neutral citation.

·All Full Court judgments delivered between 1 January 2002 to 30 April 2002 have been assigned parallel medium neutral citations in both the FCA and FCAFC series. 

·All Full Court judgments delivered from 1 May 2002 will contain the FCAFC medium neutral citation only.


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 36

MIGRATION – appeal from single Judge to Full Court – whether primary Judge erred in holding that RRT decision had not involved error of law within meaning of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e) – where evidentiary material before RRT included cable containing statement that Uzbekistani police might subject ethnic Russian Uzbekistanis to closer and more regular attention than ethnic Uzbek Uzbekistanis, although difference in treatment would be marginal – whether reasonably open to read statement as asserting some chance whose probability unspecified that Uzbekistani police might subject ethnic Russian Uzbekistanis to such attention – whether Court should infer that RRT adopted that reading and that it led RRT to conclude no real chance Uzbekistani police would subject appellants to such attention.

WORDS & PHRASES – “marginal”.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476(1)(e)

SEMYON SHUMILOV & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 609 of 2001

BRANSON, MANSFIELD & KATZ JJ
5 FEBRUARY 2002
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 609 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SEMYON SHUMILOV
FIRST APPELLANT

GALYA SHUMILOV
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BRANSON, MANSFIELD & KATZ JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

5 FEBRUARY 2002

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1         The appeal be dismissed.

2         The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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 609 of 2001

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

SEMYON SHUMILOV
FIRST APPELLANT

GALYA SHUMILOV
SECOND APPELLANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BRANSON, MANSFIELD & KATZ JJ

DATE:

5 FEBRUARY 2002

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. There is before the Court an appeal from a judgment of a Judge of the Court: see Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 516 (Beaumont J, 27 April 2001, unreported). By that judgment, the primary Judge dismissed an application…

Details
AGLC
Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 1
Case
[2002] FCAFC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Shumilov sought judicial review of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' decision to cancel their visas. The respondents, Shumilov, were non-citizens who had been granted temporary visas. Their visas were subsequently cancelled on the basis that they had failed to maintain the conditions of their visas, specifically by not remaining in Australia as required. The primary legal issues for the Court to consider were whether the Minister's decision to cancel the visas was lawful and whether the respondents had a valid argument against the decision based on procedural fairness or the merits of the case.

The Court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. The Court found that the Minister's decision was made in accordance with the Migration Act and that there was no procedural error in the decision-making process. The respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of validity that attached to the Minister's decision. The Court also found that the respondents had not demonstrated any substantial injustice resulting from the decision. The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the respondents pay the Minister's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 The appeal be dismissed.

2 The appellants pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.