DGYT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a citizen of the People's Republic of China. The applicant claimed to have engaged in espionage activities in China and Hong Kong, including infiltration, intelligence theft, and manipulation of electoral processes in Taiwan, and that these activities ceased due to instructions contrary to democratic principles. The applicant subsequently made these claims public in Australian media. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs opposed the application, arguing that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa due to having committed a serious non-political crime before arriving in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there were serious reasons for considering that the applicant had committed a serious non-political crime prior to entering Australia, which would render them ineligible for a protection visa under sections 5H(2) and 36(2C) of the *Migration Act 1958*. This involved assessing the credibility of evidence relating to alleged fraudulent conduct by the applicant concerning a property in Shanghai and the investment of funds provided by an individual named Mr. Shu. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant's actions constituted a "serious" and "non-political" crime.

The Tribunal found strong evidence of fraudulent conduct by the applicant in relation to a Shanghai property and the investment of Mr. Shu's money. The applicant had misled Mr. Shu regarding the purpose of initial funds and the ownership of the Shanghai property, which was offered as security for the investment. Evidence indicated that the funds were not invested as represented and that the applicant and his wife did not own the Shanghai property as claimed. The Tribunal applied the principle that "serious reasons for considering" a crime requires strong evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, consistent with Article 1F of the Refugees Convention. Based on the evidence of fraudulent conduct, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had committed a serious non-political crime before entering Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee due to the commission of a serious non-political crime.