GWRV and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, GWRV, had previously been found to be a refugee but the Minister was considering whether the applicant had committed a serious non-political crime before entering Australia, which would disqualify him from protection under section 5H(2)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant had served two prison sentences in Mongolia for "hooliganism" and "murder without aggravating circumstances," and had allegedly been charged with contracting to kill an associate prior to leaving Mongolia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine if there were serious reasons for considering that the applicant had committed such a crime.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had committed a "serious non-political crime" prior to entering Australia, as contemplated by Article 1F(b) of the Refugees Convention and codified in section 5H(2)(b) of the *Migration Act*. This required the Tribunal to be satisfied that there were "serious reasons" for considering such a commission, without the need for a balancing exercise between the seriousness of the crime and the risk of persecution. A secondary issue arose from the applicant's procedural fairness claims, specifically concerning the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment and a subsequent request for a re-hearing after the applicant refused to attend an in-person hearing and claimed he was not notified of a videoconference hearing.

The Tribunal considered that the applicant's prior convictions for "hooliganism" and "murder without aggravating circumstances" in Mongolia, coupled with the alleged charge of contracting to kill an associate, constituted serious reasons for considering that he had committed a serious non-political crime. The Tribunal applied the principle established in *Applicant NADB of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs* (2002) 126 FCR 453, which confirmed that the commission of a serious non-political crime, if there are serious reasons for considering it, is sufficient, in itself, to exclude a person from the protection of the Refugees Convention, without requiring a balancing test. Regarding the procedural fairness claims, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had been notified of the re-listed hearing and had been ready to proceed at a previous adjourned hearing, and therefore found no disadvantage in proceeding with the hearing. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.