CAT/C/62/D/669/2015
complainant since he was considered to have acted in bad faith. The complainant claims
that the Court erred, on one hand, by publishing personal details about him and his daughter
in the judgment, and on the other, by stating that the complainant held a Taiwanese, rather
than a Chinese, passport.3
2.10 The complainant appealed against that judgment claiming, inter alia, that the Federal
Magistrates Court had erred in finding that the complainant’s alleged bad faith was
sufficient to cancel his visa. On 20 October 2011, the Federal Court of Australia found no
basis for judicial error and dismissed the complainant’s appeal.
2.11 Between 2011 and 2012, the complainant’s father in China was allegedly visited on
several occasions by local police, who asked him to hand over the complainant’s daughter
in exchange for the cancellation of the arrest warrant against the complainant, a request his
father refused on each occasion. Moreover, in March 2011, the complainant’s houses and
vehicles were confiscated and his four bank accounts were frozen.
2.12 Following a court order issued in China in January 2012, the complainant divorced
his wife.
2.13 On 27 February 2012, the Refugee Review Tribunal 4 rejected the complainant’s
application for a review of the merits of the delegate’s decision to refuse him a protection
visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal found the complainant’s claims to be implausible and
noted that he had applied for protection in Australia only after learning that his tourist visa
had been cancelled. The Tribunal further noted that the complainant had a propensity to
significantly embellish his claims at each stage of the application process. That propensity,
and the complainant’s failure to seek protection sooner, undermined his credibility. The
Tribunal considered the complainant’s claim that he had been endangered by the
publication of his daughter’s name and date of birth, and details about the complainant’s
passport and protection visa application in the judgment issued by the Federate Magistrates
Court but found that there was no evidence to suggest that the judgment had come to the
attention of the Chinese authorities and that, in any event, the complainant’s identity had
not been disclosed in the judgment. Additionally, even if the complainant had been
identified by the Chinese authorities as having applied for protection in Australia, there was
insufficient evidence to conclude that this would put him in danger in China.
2.14 On 19 March 2012, the complainant sought review of the Refugee Review Tribunal
decision. On 31 May 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court found that the Tribunal had failed
to alert the complainant that the credibility of his claims was in issue and remitted the
matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
2.15 On 8 April 2013, the Refugee Review Tribunal upheld, for the second time, the
delegate’s decision refusing protection to the complainant. The Tribunal found that the
complainant lacked credibility and specifically rejected his claims relating to his
employment history,5 his marital status, his mother’s profession,6 his alleged persecution by
the Government of China — including the arrest warrant issued against him — his alleged
fear of being blamed for the misappropriation of public funds and being charged and
executed if returned to China, his monitoring by the Chinese authorities while in Australia,
and his allegations that he had been paid money and told never to return to China and that
his daughter had been kidnapped by the Chinese authorities in 2009. The Tribunal further
considered that the complainant’s claim at the second Tribunal hearing that he was planning
3
4
5
6
The passport nationality was corrected and the passport number deleted. The amended judgment was
published on 13 January 2012.
The Refugee Review Tribunal was a statutory body, which provided a final, independent merits
review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship or delegates of the
Minister to refuse to grant protection visas to non-citizens within Australia, or to cancel such visas.
On 1 July 2015, the Refugee Review Tribunal was amalgamated into the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal.
The complainant had initially stated that he worked for a Chinese company. At the second Refugee
Review Tribunal hearing, however, he had claimed to work for the Government of China.
At the first Refugee Review Tribunal hearing, the complainant had stated that his mother was a legal
representative of an investment company and had provided evidence to that effect, whereas, at the
second hearing, he had stated that she was a retired schoolteacher.
3