8. In their Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) , the Respondent asserted that the 2006 crime would have been punishable under s98 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).[15] In a post hearing submission lodged on 26 August 2025, the Respondent clarified that the reference to s98 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) was in error and submitted the relevant excerpts of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT):

309 Robbery > > _A person commits an offence (robbery) if - _ > > (a) the person commits theft; and > > _(b) when committing the theft, or immediately before or immediately after committing the theft, the person - _ > > (i) uses force on someone else; or > > (ii) threatens to use force then and there on someone else; > > with intent to commit theft or to escape from the scene. > > Maximum penalty: 1 400 penalty units, imprisonment for 14 years or both. > > Note Theft means an offence against s 308 or s 321. > > 310 Aggravated robbery > > _A person commits an offence (aggravated robbery) if the person - _ > > (a) commits robbery in company with 1 or more people; or > > (b) commits robbery and, at the time of the robbery, has an offensive weapon with him or her. > > Maximum penalty: 2 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both. > > Note Robbery means an offence against s 309.

9. In an update to its SFIC, the Respondent submitted:

[24] If the alleged Singaporean offence of 'Robbery with Hurt' was applied comparative to the maximum sentence legislated for the alleged offence under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the applicant would likely have been punishable under s 310: Aggravated robbery. This offence would have been punishable by a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. This offence involves violence against a person (the elements of Aggravated robbery under s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) includes the commission of Robbery under s 309 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) which involves the use of force or threaten to use force) and its maximum penalty of 25 years significantly exceeds 3 years, amounting to a "serious foreign crime offence" as defined under s 5 of the Act.[16] > > [Emphasis in original]

10. If the element of robbery is disregarded due to inconsistency with the Applicant's admission, the Applicant's offence would likely have been punishable under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which provides for a term of imprisonment for 5 years:

24 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm > > (1) A person who assaults another person and by the assault occasions actual bodily harm is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 5 years.[17]

11. The Complementary Protection Guidelines[18] provide that when assessing whether offending behaviour amounts to a 'serious non-political crime', consideration should be given to all relevant circumstances including the circumstances of the offending, the age of the Applicant at the time of offending, and role the Applicant played in the offending. In respect of the nature and circumstances of the 2006 crime, the Applicant was 27 years old at the time of the offence and has admitted his role as primary offender. The Respondent notes that the Applicant said that the intention was to stab the victim after he was informed of the man's molestation of his wife. He had already served time in prison and was aware of the potential consequences for committing crimes from his prior experience of the justice system.
12. The Applicant has explained that he was motivated to commit the crime by the need to protect his ex-wife, and that he was emotional and not thinking clearly. I acknowledge the Applicant claims to have had a 'turbulent youth', limited education and was subject to violence from his father.[19]
13. The nature of the 2006 crime and the Applicant's explanation are inconsistent with it being a political crime. At the time of the offence, the Applicant was a relatively young man who had experience in the criminal justice system. He was the sole perpetrator of the 2006 crime. Overall, I do not find that the Applicant's age, the circumstances of the offending or the role he played in the crime to be appreciable mitigation factors.
14. The 2006 crime involved violence against a person, and the maximum penalties of imprisonment on conviction range from 5 to 25 years. Having regard to s 5(1) of the Migration Act, I am satisfied that the offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding 3 years and an offence against a law in force in Australia. That the 2006 crime is an offence against the law in Singapore is confirmed by the SPF Certificate of Clearance. It follows that the 2006 crime is a 'serious Australian offence' and a 'serious foreign offence' as defined under s 5(1) of the Migration Act and I am satisfied that the 2006 crime is a 'serious crime' under s 36(2C)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act.

1. The expression 'non-political crime' is defined under s 5(1) of the Migration Act:

non‑political crime: > > (a) subject to paragraph (b), means a crime where a person's motives for committing the crime were wholly or mainly non‑political in nature; and > > (b) includes an offence that, under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the definition of political offence in section 5 of the Extradition Act 1988, is not a political offence in relation to a country for the purposes of that Act.

2. Section 5 of the Extradition Act 1998 (Cth) (Extradition Act) defines 'political offence':

political offence, in relation to a country, means an offence against the law of the country that is of a political character (whether because of the circumstances in which it is committed or otherwise and whether or not there are competing political parties in the country), but does not include: > > (a) an offence that involves an act of violence against a person's life or liberty; or > > (b) an offence prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph to be an extraditable offence in relation to the country or all countries; or > > (c) an offence prescribed by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph not to be a political offence in relation to the country or all countries.

3. To meet the definition of a political crime, there must be a sufficiently close connection between the criminal act and its alleged political purpose and object.[20] In this instance, the Applicant has admitted his motive for committing the 2006 crime was to defend his ex-wife and because he was angry and emotional.
4. I also note the statutory exclusion under s 5(a) of the Extradition Act provides that a political offence does not include 'an offence that involves an act of violence against a person's life or liberty'. The Refugee Law Guidelines provide examples of offences that may amount to an act of violence against a person's life or liberty and include 'assault'. I accept the Respondent's submission that the 2006 crime falls under this exclusion.
5. The 2006 crime was not of political character and involved an act of violence against a person. For these reasons, I find the 2006 crime constitutes a non-political crime.

Was the crime committed before the Applicant entered Australia?

1. The Applicant entered Australia on 11 December 2006 on a visitor visa.[21] In relation to the 2006 crime, the Singapore Police Clearance certificate states the Applicant is wanted for an offence that happened on 15 January 2006. The Applicant has stated the 2006 crime occurred in 'early January 2006' or 'approximately January 2006'. I find that the Applicant committed the 2006 crime before entering Australia.

1. For the reasons I have outlined, I find that there are serious reasons for considering that the Applicant committed a serious non-political crime before entering Australia. I am not satisfied that there is anything in the circumstances in which the 2006 crime was committed or circumstances specific to the Applicant at the time he committed the crime or subsequent which should cause the crime to be treated as anything other than a serious non-political crime. Accordingly, I find that s36(2C)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act applies and the Applicant is taken not to satisfy the criterion for a protection visa in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

[2] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

[4] See GWRV v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 296 FCR 350; [2023] FCAFC 39 (Jackson, Abraham and Feutrill JJ) agreeing at [42]-[44], [48]-[49].

[5] FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 310 ALR 1; [2014 HCA 26] (FTZK) French CJ and Gageler J at [8]-[9], [14].

[6] ZVYZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] (ZVYZ) FCA 28 [24]-[26].

[15] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, p. 7 [24]

[16] Respondent's submission, 25 August 2025.

[20] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Singh [2002] HCA 7; 209 CLR 533; 186 ALR 393; 76 ALJR 514 (7 March 2002) at [21] per Gleeson CJ.