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 2001BRANSON, 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 APPELLANTGALYA SHUMILOV
SECOND APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
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 APPELLANTGALYA SHUMILOV
SECOND APPELLANTAND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
BRANSON, MANSFIELD & KATZ JJ
DATE:
5 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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…
- AGLC
- Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 1
- Case
- [2002] FCAFC 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.