CAT/C/62/D/669/2015

2.3
On 28 October 2010, the complainant travelled to Australia on a one-year tourist
visa to visit his mother and sister, who was an Australian citizen. 1 The complainant’s
daughter stayed in China with the complainant’s father. While in Australia, the complainant
allegedly received an email from Beijing containing photographs and a map of the place
where the complainant was staying in Australia, suggesting that he was under surveillance.
On 9 November 2010, the complainant allegedly received an email from a friend informing
him that an arrest order had been issued against the complainant by the Haidan District
police and that he was suspected of having committed a criminal offence.
2.4
On 10 December 2010, the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship
received information from the Beijing office of the Australian Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade that the complainant intended to kidnap his daughter from his wife and
that he would be seeking protection in Australia on false documents. The complainant notes
that this information was false, given that his daughter had remained in China during his
stay in Australia.
2.5
On 19 December 2010, an online magazine called “Boxun News” published a report
claiming that US$300 million had gone missing from the Taiwan office of the Government
of China and allegedly suggesting that the complainant had played a role in the
misappropriation of funds.
2.6
On an unspecified date in December 2010, the complainant allegedly received a
telephone call from a Chinese national from the Government of China who offered to
transfer 500,000 yuan (approximately US$ 80,000) to the complainant’s bank account in
Australia and to issue him a European passport: an offer that the complainant turned down.
2.7
On 27 January 2011, the complainant was detained at Sydney Airport as he was
returning from Fiji 2 and interviewed by Australian immigration officials. On 28 January
2011, the complainant’s tourist visa was cancelled and he was transferred to Villawood
Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney, from where he was released only on 17 May
2012. While in detention, the complainant was prescribed medication for diabetes and
psychosis. In December 2012, he was transferred to hospital for three weeks, where it was
determined that he suffered from neither of those conditions. Nevertheless, the authorities
at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre required him to continue to take the prescribed
medication. The complainant claims that, by the time of writing, he had developed diabetes
and that his mental health is affected by both the medication and his fear of returning to
China.
2.8
On 31 January 2011, the complainant applied for a protection visa, which was
rejected on 11 April 2011 by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
The delegate found that the complainant had presented an incredible set of circumstances
mixed with intrigue and did not have a genuine fear of harm, nor was there a real chance of
persecution occurring.
2.9
The complainant applied for a review of that decision. On 2 June 2011, the Federal
Magistrates Court of Australia (now the Federal Circuit Court of Australia) rejected the
complainant’s application on the basis that he had been untruthful in several respects and
had provided conflicting information, in particular regarding his marital status, the persons
with whom his daughter was staying in China and the nature and authorship of the phone
message informing him about the warrant issued for his arrest in China. The Court further
considered that the complainant had applied for a protection visa only after learning that his
tourist visa had been cancelled and had therefore acted in bad faith. The Court found a
jurisdictional error in the delegate’s decision, based on the fact that the delegate had failed
to provide the complainant with relevant information received concerning the alleged
kidnapping of his daughter and his attempt to re-enter Australia using false documents.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the complainant had only had access to his lawyer two
hours into the interview procedure. However, the Minister did not grant relief to the
1

2

2

This visa, granted on 13 August 2010, allowed for multiple entries up until 19 August 2011, and for a
stay of three months after each entry.
The complainant explains that he went on that trip because his visa required him to leave Australia
after each stay of three consecutive months.

Select target paragraph3