When the sane decision to reject 6 refugees who have returned to where they are escaping from is overturned something is wrong.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35518855/iranian-refugees-to-stay-in-australia-on-valid-visas/#page1

Full story and video link better mine modified to 350 words.

Iranian refugees retain protection visas despite holidaying in homeland

Since receiving their Australian protection visas, some of them returned numerous times to Iran.

However, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) foiled Mr Dutton’s attempts to deport the Iranians, allowing them to stay here anyway, The Daily Telegraph reports.

The Iranians, who paid people smugglers to get to Australia, were given protection visas after claiming their lives would be in danger if they returned to Iran.

The six people each arrived in Australia between 2009 and 2014.

It's understood one person made three return trips to Iran after getting their Australian visa.

Another person claimed to be on an Iranian wanted list but the Immigration Department later discovered the person was in no danger if they returned to Iran.

A couple who arrived by boat claimed to have no identification documents and they would be killed if they returned.

However it was revealed they actually had valid Iranian passports when they travelled to Iran and back using them.

In both these cases, the AAT found the individual and the couple had lied on their visa applications, but still overturned the decision to kick them out of Australia.

And two Iranian family members claimed to be stateless with no identity documents.

It was soon discovered this wasn't the case when another family member applied to join them in Australia and provided documents to show all were Iranian citizens who were in no danger.

The AAT reinstated their visas after accepting the documents were fake, even though an expert gave evidence to the AAT that the documents were genuine.

Despite the AAT writing in the documents that it was satisfied the Iranian asylum seekers lied to Australian authorities about the dangers they faced if they were sent back to Iran, it still overturned the decisions by the minister to deport them and allowed them all to stay in Australia.

warped socialist and gutless conservatives. No wonder Trump and Brexit took place.

Totally absurd situation the law says you can't lie but the tribunals are saying you can and nothing will happen.

Imagine how the victims of a rapist will feel now they are allowed to stay because it would effect the mental condition and welfare of the rapists wife.

There certainly seems to be a problem there. On what grounds did the AAT reject their deportation?

However, while I don't think it's applicable to any of these cases, we shouldn't prevent refugees, especially those on TPVs, from visiting their homeland in order to determine whether it's now safe for them to settle there again.

While this case does raise some questions I am fully supportive of there being an avenue of legal appeal to government decisions. This is why we continue to be a stable democracy. These protections and checks and balances are part of that stability.

For those wanting these stripped away to suit their ideology can migrate to Russia or China to see what it is like.

“The AAT reinstated their visas after accepting the documents were fake, even though an expert gave evidence to the AAT that the documents were genuine.”

Well one would have thought there was an expert presented for the other side. In the end the tribunal accepted that advice. This is normal in judicial cases.

very good chance that these Iranians were encouraged to lie by the refugee advocates in the first place. Triggs herself is very fluid when it comes to the truth.

Someone may remember more, I recall Abbott or someone saying they were going to do away with the tribunals before or just after the election.

Anyone with info?

It seems reasonable to me for a refugee to subsequently obtain false documents with a different identity in order to visit his/her family in their country of origin, perhaps also to bring some of their belongings. Obviously they couldn't remain there for too long lest they be recognised.

Wouldn't you do the same?

Dear Philip,

There is much here that I find puzzling.

It seems that - 4,389 visa decisions made by Mr
Dutton or his delegate in the past year were
overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
Which means that of the 11,323 ministerial visa
decisions reviewed in the 12 months to April 30 this
year, the AAT rejected 39 per cent of them.

Some of those that the AAt overturned included
Mr Dutton's decision to kick Indian sex creep taxi
driver Jagdeep Singh after he admitted assaulting female
passengers in Melbourne. The AAT also foiled Mr Dutton's
attempt to deport rapist Carl Stafford to New Zealand
despite Stafford having racked up 365 convictions in
Australia.

As Mr Dutton has pointed out: "These people, if they are
criminals or not legitimate refugees are displacing people
who have a claim to be made, people who are being
slaughtered in the Middle East now that we would want to
give protection to."

It appears that the Minister has the power to set aside
AAT decisions. Why isn't he considering to do just that,
at least on a case by case basis.

It makes no sense.

It has long been established that asylum seekers are mainly con merchants who are taking us for a ride. If there is evidence that they or a refugee/immigrant has lied to us about anything, their claim should be rejected and they put am a plane out ASAP. We are fools to ourselves.

Interviews should begin with the assumption that they are lying and it is up to them to prove their case.

Sadly, there is nothing new or unusual about this nonsense. I recall some years ago writing to the then Immigration Minister (don't recall which idiot was stuffing up the job then) about a similar instance where 'refugees' supposedly fleeing from danger were regularly returning to Afghanistan on business and for family holidays!

I was informed by the Minister's flunkey that they, like any other 'Australian' were allowed to come and go as they please. I'm not sure what was not understood about the word 'refugee' by the flunkey, nor how Afghanistan suddenly became safe for someone who had been granted a protection visa because they said it wasn't safe when the came here by boat.

Dutton and his governmemt are treacherous idiots, who should be brought before the courts to explain why they are unable to perform their principle task of protecting Australia, and why they should remain in office at our expense.

In another really stupid situation concerning this rot, Iran is refusing to take back several detained and rejected illegals that the Stick Insect wants to return to them. Nothing at all to do with the Immigration Department makes any sense at all. And, once again, Australian politicians are our worst enemies.

I have look for the case on the AAT website but it only publishes a selection of refugee decisions.

Without more details it is hard to make an informed assessment of the decision but in my dealings with the AAT they generally get things right. There is a lot of experience among the members including judges of the Federal Court of Australia.
http://www.aat.gov.au/AAT/files/98/9867fda3-1b33-49f7-8f1f-781028fcba13.pdf

They are not "faceless bed wetting, heart bleeding bureaucrats" as so sneeringly asserted by the ignorant dropkick in the original link.

So it really comes down to whether those who have claimed to have been in fear of their lives should be able to return to their home countries to visit. There are certainly places even in Australia that I would be happy to visit but uncomfortable living there. I have lived in countries where our compound had glass topped 8 foot walls and we employed a full time guard who had more than one occasion to fire his weapon. Being in a house that could be targeted after planning is a hell of a lot different to visiting and remaining mobile.

That is not to say people shouldn't be held accountable for what they put on their applications for refugee status because it remains a vulnerable system open to fear-mongering by our less than ethical rightwingers.

Looks like I have go take back what I said about Dutton. He actually ordered these shonks to be deported. The AAT overturned his decision. It appears that the tribunal has overturned 4,389 of his decisions in 12 months. There is not much point in having an elected government when the decisions are made by bureaucrats - most of them Labor plants.

Seems to be labor stacked.

AAT(Admin Appeals Tribunal)President is Duncan Kerr, former Keating Govt Minister who was appointed by Julia Gillard as Judge of the Federal Court and President of ATT.

His appointment comes almost a year after Bernard Murphy, the chairman of Labor-linked law firm Maurice Blackburn, was also made a judge of the Federal Court. ...”

Bernard Murphy and Julia Gillard worked for Slater & Gordon,Vic. before he moved to Maurice Blackburn,Vic.

In the ABC interview with Lucy Shannon, Duncan Kerr said:

“...I am a Labor Party man and the next election I will be backing the Labor candidate, whoever it might be. ..”

“..LUCY SHANNON: The other significant issue for Duncan Kerr is human rights, particularly those of refugees. He remains disappointed with his party's refusal to process asylum seekers in Australia and wasn't supportive of the direction Julia Gillard took the issue during the campaign..."

Looks like conflict of interest to me.

No wonder Trump treats the judges with the contempt they deserve. What sort of traitors would allow these liars to stay in the country? That's right labour and greens.

If these tribunal members worked 365 days a year they would have to
decide 12 cases every day. If they work the legal year probably
double that number.
As Iran refuses to accept forcibly returned residents I would just
put them on a plane and send them and let them spend the rest of their life in transit.

Yuyutsu: If it was at the risk of being hanged, no I would not take the risk !

Everything is going ding bats !
Julia Bishop is lobbying for Australia to have a place on the
UN Human Rights Commission.
I object to Australia being made a fool of by being on that body.
It always has majority of Islamic countries on it and the other
members have refused to sign the UN Human Rights Treaty,
So what the hell are they doing on it ?

No doubt the Appeals Tribunal takes into account the UN Human Rights
when making their decisions.

God ! How stupid we are !!

Dear Bazz,

Felt the same way when Tim Wilson was picked by Abbott to sit as a human rights commissioner. This was a bloke who wanted it shut down.

Then when he left Gillian Triggs took the job,
from mediocre to disastrous.

Dear Phillip S,

The tribunial Labour stacked? What an ignorant and asinine comment. The Abbott government packed the thing so tightly with has been or failed Liberal candidates listing the ship so far to the right it is lucky to be afloat.

Most of these were the appointments made by Brandis to the Administrative Appeals Tribunial a week before the last election was called. All appointed for between 5 – 7 years on hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Theo Tavoularis who represented Brandis' son in a court matter in 2013. He was a substantial Liberal Party donor. Brandis has refused to disclose if he had received discounted fees.

Anne Brandon-Baker who was former chief of staff to Scott Morrison. Appointed for 5 years.

Dr Denis Dragovic, failed Liberal Senate candidate for Victoria. Appointed for 7 years.

John Sosso, another Queensland lawyer and former departmental head under Cambell Newman.

Tim Wilson's former senior advisor Louise Bygrave who is in for 7 years.

Michael Manetta, failed liberal candidate in the SA 2015 election.

Saxon Rice, former LNP MP in Queensland who lost her seat in the QLD 2015 election.

Former Liberal candidate Peter Vlahos.

Judith Troeth who is a former Liberal Senator.

Lawyer Justin Myer who was advisor to two Liberal premiers in Victoria and who donated over $11,000 to the party.

Former ACT Liberal leader Bill Stefaniak.

Dr Bennie Ng who served as the head of social policy in Abbott's office.

Anne-Marie Elias, who was a former senior policy adviser to NSW minister Andrew Constance and self described as 'chief disrupter' within the NSW government.

He appointed Helena Claringbold who was a former staffer to Abbott and who donated $45,000 to the party.

Nick McGowen another failed Liberal candidate.

David McCulloch a former staffer to Amanda Vanstone.

Michael Cooke who was an advisor to Tony Abbott.

Karen Synon, a former Liberal Party Senator.

Bruce MacCarthy, who was a NSW Liberal MP.

Gary Humphries, one of Brandis' former colleagues in the Senate who got the job of deputy head of the tribunal for 4 years at $450,000 per year.

Des Houghton writing for The Courier Mail,

"...Six Iranian boat people have made a mockery of our strict border controls by gaining residency and then travelling back and forth to Iran on holiday.

Peter Dutton moved to deport six Iranian boat people who have holidayed at home despite claiming to be sent home would be dangerous.
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton did the right thing and moved to deport them, only to have his decision overturned by the Administration Appeals Tribunal.

In fact 39 per cent of Dutton’s decisions or those by delegates have been overturned by the AAT in the past year.

Dutton has done a mighty job protecting borders and showing the door to undesirables.

He chose his words carefully yesterday saying some “infuriating” cases make you “shake your head”. So the courts, once again, usurp the powers of the democratically-elected Cabinet minister responsible for our welfare.

The left-wing Greens and Labor pretenders don’t like me mentioning it but “refugees” pay $10,000 to people-smugglers for places on boats to Australia. So they are not genuine refugees. They are queue jumpers.

Polls show a majority of Australians support immigration. But the majority also favours entry of only genuine refugees who have been carefully assessed.

Now isn’t the time for Malcolm Turnbull to go soft.

He should remember that strife surrounding unvetted immigration has smashed European Union and delivered Donald Trump the White House."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-immigration-farce-shows-pauline-hanson-was-right-all-along/news-story/81e38ed77a00742f7c81c53b0d892c58

STEELEREDUX states in his last paragraph; '...That is not to say people shouldn't become accountable for what they put on their applications for refugee status because it remains a vulnerable system open to fear mongering by our less then ethical right wingers...'?

See if I understand you correctly? You imply the crime here is 'fear mongering' by right wingers, not 'falsifying or uttering' an official document is that right? Do those of the 'left' ever resort to fear-mongering I wonder?

Your comments apropos the qualifications and quality of those who preside on the Tribunal is correct. I think the mistake for many lies in it's nomenclature. Perhaps remove 'Tribunal' and insert 'Court' might do it? Many ordinary folk who are unaware of the various strata's of our Justice system, recognise 'Court' but less so 'Tribunal' - Just a thought?

Your commentary concerning the 'bed wetting' etc, seemed to have piqued your finer sensibilities and moral awareness somewhat STEELEREDUX? An unusual happenstance for a gentleman from the measured 'Left' I would've thought.

Whether these people left their homeland because they were in fear of their lives, notwithstanding they returned there later for their holidays...?

It would raise the following questions; (i) While at home, did something happen that was so grave, they honestly believed they were in serious peril of suffering serious injury or death, it necessitated they immediately flee their homeland? (ii) And now that immense risk had apparently abated and diminished sufficiently enough, for these people to return home on holidays. And the erudite members of AAT were duly persuaded by the veraciousness of the appellant's impassioned testimony?

From purely a humble policeman's view of such things, I'd say these people, both individually and collectively are veritable liars and are simply taking the Members of the AAT together with Australian Taxpayer's for a very long and expensive ride. I reckon deep down, you also know it, STEELEREDUX.

I remind you of the UNCHR’s Rules.

CHAPTER III – CESSATION CLAUSES
A. General
111. The so-called “cessation clauses” (Article 1 C (1) to (6) of the 1951 Convention) spell out the conditions under which a refugee ceases to be a refugee. They are based on the consideration that international protection should not be granted where it is no longer necessary or justified.
113. Article 1 C of the 1951 Convention provides that: “This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

B. Interpretation of terms
(1) Voluntary re-availment of national protection
Article 1 C (1) of the 1951 Convention:
“He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;”
118. This cessation clause refers to a refugee possessing a nationality who remains outside the country of his nationality. A refugee who has voluntarily re-availed himself of national protection is no longer in need of international protection. He has demonstrated that he is no longer “unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality”.
119. This cessation clause implies three requirements:
(a) voluntariness: the refugee must act voluntarily;
(b) intention: the refugee must intend by his action to re-avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

Refugee status is not granted to;
3) Persons considered not to be deserving of international protection
Article 1 F of the 1951 Convention:
“The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Cont.

Cont.
122. A refugee requesting protection from the authorities of the country of his nationality has only “re-availed” himself of that protection when his request has actually been granted. The most frequent case of “re-availment of protection” will be where the refugee wishes to return to his country of nationality. He will not cease to be a refugee merely by applying for repatriation. On the other hand, obtaining an entry permit or a national passport for the purposes of returning will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered as terminating refugee status.16 This does not, however, preclude assistance being given to the repatriant-also by UNHCR--in order to facilitate his return.
123. A refugee may have voluntarily obtained a national passport, intending either to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin while staying outside that country, or to return to that country. As stated above, with the receipt of such a document he normally ceases to be a refugee. If he subsequently renounces either intention, his refugee status will need to be determined afresh. He will need to explain why he changed his mind, and to show that there has been no basic change in the conditions that originally made him a refugee.
154. A refugee committing a serious crime in the country of refuge is subject to due process of law in that country. In extreme cases, Article 33 paragraph 2 of the Convention permits a refugee's expulsion or return to his former home country if, having been convicted by a final judgement of a “particularly serious” common crime, he constitutes a danger to the community of his country of Refuge

SteeleRedux - Quote "The Abbott government packed the thing so tightly with has been or failed Liberal candidates listing the ship so far to the right it is lucky to be afloat."

Now that is to quote you "an ignorant and asinine comment" if that was the case please explain 39% of the ministers decisions reversed?

Foxy Quote "It appears that the Minister has the power to set aside
AAT decisions. Why isn't he considering to do just that,
at least on a case by case basis."

Where did that info come from, as you say, especially in the case of the 6 Iranians the public would be percentage wise very highly on his side if he did deport them.

Maybe he should have just cancelled there passports so they could not return, except by boat again.

The perception amongst many Australians is that the AAT simply rubber stamps refugee claims.

That about 99% of applications are approved by the AAT when <70% are approved by UNHCR procedures, and when there clear evidence of fraud by so called refugees their approvals are still upheld blows a huge hole in the credibility of the Tribunal.

Is the Tribunal pushed by the Lefties? I think so. Corrupt? Maybe.

Dear o sung wu,

Firstly may I apologise for not replying to your post directed at me.

You had originally written;

“STEELEREDUX states in his last paragraph; '...That is not to say people shouldn't become accountable for what they put on their applications for refugee status because it remains a vulnerable system open to fear mongering by our less then ethical right wingers...'?”

I will admit to not reading further at the time.

But you went on to address me directly which I had missed. You of course deserve a response which I am happy to provide.

Please permit me for taking the liberty of coalescing the issues you appear to have with my post. It would seem these are your points;

1. That fearmongering is not only the purveyance of the right but also of the left.

I fully agree.

2. That the use of court rather than tribunal would better inform the less attuned to the role of the ATT.

This I will agree to a point. I remember appearing before the AAT on a planning matter and presenting evidence to which the counsel on the opposing side objected. The adjudicating Member dismissed the objection saying the evidence rules were not as delineated as in a law court. In some ways the tribunal system more closely reflects the French inquisitorial system rather than the British adversarial one.

Cont..

Cont..

3. That something could put one in fear of one's life to such an extent that living in a country would be perilous but visiting vastly less so.

I think a good example might be those who were local interpreters for the 'coalition of the willing'. Many knew that some day or night there would be a knock on the door from those who wished to do them or their families harm. As I stated earlier the risks involved in living in a fixed abode are vastly different to a short term visit. I have no problems with the veracity of original refugee claims being re-examined if new evidence comes to light. What I am more concerned about is that after being tested by an independent body such as a tribunal that that decision should be honoured.

I respect the checks and balances we have to political power. The fact that so many of Dutton's decisions are being overturned probably speaks more to the punitive nature of his department's actions than any issue of bias within the AAT. In China the easiest way to get rid of someone they don't like is to accuse them of corruption. Their courts have a 99% conviction rate. Do we really want that for Australia? This is what people seem to be calling for.

It's hard to know what powers the Immigration Minister has when his decisions can be overturned by the AAT, made up of Left, un-elected Fifth Columnists. It is the AAT overturning the Minister's decisions - nearly 5,000 in one year!

All the Minister has said is the they will have to 'make laws' to prevent this from happening. Fat chance of any such laws passing through the also Fifth Column senate.

Australia is rooted.

One man can not have total power over an immigrant because he is a minister. The AAT is a review body to check the relevant immigration status. That does not mean these people have done anything wrong.

If the immigrant does not like the decision of the tribunal they have 35 days to lodge their complaint to the courts.

All Dutton's department can do is refer certain people for review of status. He can not be a hatchet man because he may not like someone.

These people have already been partially accepted for migration, they are on bridging visas, so it would have to be something substantial for them not to be accepted for migration.

This has all the Hallmarks of a right wingers winge.

Doog: These people have already been partially accepted for migration, they are on bridging visas, so it would have to be something substantial for them not to be accepted for migration.

What part of: Don't you understand.
CHAPTER III – CESSATION CLAUSES
A. General
111. The so-called “cessation clauses” (Article 1 C (1) to (6) of the 1951 Convention) spell out the conditions under which a refugee ceases to be a refugee. They are based on the consideration that international protection should not be granted where it is no longer necessary or justified.
113. Article 1 C of the 1951 Convention provides that: “This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

doog - Hey accepted under Dudd and Dillard, it was admitted then only a very small number were checked properly.

Simple FACT they lied

To quote you "This has all the Hallmarks of a right wingers winge."
So you are saying it is okay to lie to get an advantage, go try that argument next time in court or another situation that requires truthful answers.

Appeals
What are the provisions for appeal against the decisions by Immigration delegates in other comparable countries, eg US, UK, Europe?

Are the Australian arrangements unnecessarily encouraging and extending appeals, or resulting in too many or obviously counterproductive reversals of decisions by the immigration department? The last mentioned is exercising delegations of the minister and in accord with policy and regulations passed by the Parliament.

They may have either signed a declaration or swore an oath that they
were in fear of their life if returned to Iran.
They have had a court hearing previously.
If so they have committed perjury or made a false declaration.
It would be interesting to know what declaration is made when applying.
In the court hearing did they swear to tell the truth on the Koran ?
If so it is not worth the paper of which it is made.
Therefore they probably cannot be charged with perjury.

SR,

These seemingly preposterous decisions by the AAT make it very clear to the majority of Australians why so many of Dutton's decisions are rescinded.

While I am sure that there are other factors in the AAT's decision, the simple fact that these "asylum seekers" claimed that they were fleeing from a regime because remaining there put their lives in jeopardy, but, a short time later could return for holidays makes their original claim extremely dubious.

As it is a criminal offense to lie on official documents, perhaps it would be in Dutton's interest to prosecute them. Then their visa can be cancelled on the grounds of poor character.

TTbN wants to make laws to get his way over the senate. What is he a communist or worse.
Maybe Dutton is the fault. How can he be he's one of those far right clowns.
The AAT i am sure are doing a good job at assessing disputes about migration issues.
It is only the far right believers that have a problem with it. The system is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

Doog: The AAT i am sure are doing a good job at assessing disputes about migration issues.

The AAT & their Public Service advisors appears to be stacked with the far left. That's what the problem is.

Doog: It is only the far right believers that have a problem with it.

No, anyone, who is a thinking person has a problem with their decisions. Not just the far right.