Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shumilov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 516
MIGRATION – review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant a protection visa – no material error of law shown in Tribunal's reasons Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 430(1), 476(1)(e) Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Singh (2000) 98 FCR 469 referred to
SEMYON SHUMILOV AND GALYA SHUMILOV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
NO. N 1374 OF 2000
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J
DATE: 27 APRIL 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NO. N 1374 OF 2000
BETWEEN: SEMYON SHUMILOV
FIRST APPLICANT
GALYA SHUMILOV
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J
DATE OF ORDER: 27 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is 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 NO. N 1374 OF 2000
BETWEEN: SEMYON SHUMILOV
FIRST APPLICANT
GALYA SHUMILOV
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: BEAUMONT J
DATE: 27 APRIL 2001
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEAUMONT J:
INTRODUCTION 1 This is an application under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming a decision made by a delegate of the Minister to refuse an application made by the applicants for protection visas. 2 The applicants are citizens of Uzbekistan. The second applicant is the mother of the first applicant. Both applicants arrived in Australia on 14 November 1998 and lodged applications for protection visas on 9 December 1998. They claim to fear persecution in Uzbekistan for reason of their Russian ethnicity and their religion, Christianity. 3 The applicants' grounds of their application for review are as follows. 4 First, they claim that the Tribunal made no express finding, rejecting the applicants' evidence of violent attacks by the Uzbek police, and failed to make a finding as to the motivation of these attackers. This alleged failure to make a finding on motivation is said to give rise to a ground for review under s 476(1)(a) of the Act and by virtue of the provisions of s 430(1)(c)1C of the Act. 5 Secondly, the applicants say that the Tribunal accepted that there was a real chance that the applicants would be subjected to corrupt practices by the Uzbek police and it failed to make findings on material questions of fact in relation to the issue of effective state protection. This failure, the applicants argued, discloses an error of law under s 430(1)(c)1C of the Act.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate