Goncharov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1524

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Goncharov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1524

SERGEY GONCHAROV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS N 972 of 2001 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 29 OCTOBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N972 OF 2001

BETWEEN: SERGEY GONCHAROV

FIRST APPLICANT

LARISA GONCHAROVA

SECOND APPLICANT

YULIA GONCHAROVA

THIRD APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE OF ORDER: 29 OCTOBER 2001

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicants pay the respondent's 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 N972 OF 2001

BETWEEN: SERGEY GONCHAROV

FIRST APPLICANT

LARISA GONCHAROV

SECOND APPLICANT

YULIA GONCHAROV

THIRD APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 29 OCTOBER 2001

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT") made on 22 May 2001. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent ("the Minister") made on 20 December 1999 not to grant a protection (class XA) visa to the applicants. The application was filed in this Court on 22 June 2001. 2 The first and second applicants are husband and wife, respectively. The third applicant is their child. The RRT noted that only the first applicant claimed that he was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. As the RRT said, the fate of the second and third applicants' claims depends on the outcome of the first applicant's application for a protection visa. For convenience, I shall refer to the first applicant simply as "the applicant". 3 The application filed in this Court merely recites several grounds of review available under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("Migration Act"). Directions were made that included provision for the filing of an amended application and affidavit evidence on behalf of the applicant. In the event, no amended application or affidavits were filed. 4 The applicant did, however, file written submissions which were signed by a migration agent. At the hearing, the applicant appeared without representation, but was assisted by an interpreter skilled in the Russian language. The applicant's oral submissions were quite lengthy but, as is understandable, were directed principally to factual findings made by the RRT with which he disagreed.