Facebook led to Visa Refusal

[Guest The Pom Queen]

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia has ruled that the material on Facebook page of an applicant is “information” that is “evidentiary material”. The ruling has come in the case of a Bangladeshi national seeking the grant of Protection visa in Australia.

 

The 36-year-old male Bangladeshi petitioner’s application for a protection visa had been earlier declined by a delegate of the Immigration Minister in July 2014.

 

The applicant who arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in October 2013 claimed in his Protection Visa application that he had converted from Islam to Christianity before he left Bangladesh. He also claimed that he had been baptised at a church in Australia after arriving here.

 

The applicant claimed that he had ongoing fear for his life if he were to return to Bangladesh as a consequence of his religious conversion.

 

However, the Immigration Department concluded that he had fabricated his claims of conversion to Christianity. During his interview with an officer of the department, the applicant was told that his Facebook page still stated that he was a Muslim.

 

However, the actual decision record didn’t mention the Facebook information being the reason for refusal of the application.

 

As the applicant sought a review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, it was held that the information on his Facebook page was inconsistent with his claim to have converted to Christianity. The Tribunal upheld the refusal of Protection visa application.

 

In the Federal Circuit Court, the applicant’s legal representative said that the Tribunal’s decision had a procedural error as the Tribunal did not give the applicant clear particulars of the Facebook material. While the Immigration Minister’s representative countered this by claiming that the Facebook page wasn’t “information” within the meaning of the applicable act, it only had bearing on the applicant’s credibility.

 

However, Judge Dowdy held that the material on Facebook page was indeed “information” and that he should have been given the particulars of it. The Judge set aside the tribunal’s order considering that the applicant should have been provided the reason for the refusal of his visa application.

 

“His Facebook page accordingly, at the very least, “undermined” his claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution and a potential for harm by reason of his asserted Christian religion.”

 

"Accordingly, having regard to the way this case has been conducted, the decision of the Tribunal, notwithstanding the strength of its other findings which led it not to be satisfied that the Applicant met the Refugee Convention Criterion in s.36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion obligations under s.36(2)(aa) were applicable, must be set aside," the judgment read.

[Parley]

If he was fraudulently trying to gain a visa to Australia then it is good he was caught out in the lie.

[kevsan]

Which is fine - but on what proof was used to ascertain lying- Facebook? Really?

 

I rarely use Facebook, only to stay in touch with people overseas, but my profile still says i live in the UK. Does that mean my tax return with my Melbourne address is a lie/fraud. Will the ATO be after me?

[Nemesis]

Which is fine - but on what proof was used to ascertain lying- Facebook? Really?

 

I rarely use Facebook, only to stay in touch with people overseas, but my profile still says i live in the UK. Does that mean my tax return with my Melbourne address is a lie/fraud. Will the ATO be after me?

Part of our visa refusal was based on information taken from facebook, posted by a (former) friend in jest, but taken as gospel by DIBP. Our argument against it was ignored, apparently DIBP DO believe everything on facebook is true.

 

Moral of it is, be very very careful what can be seen on your page -or on those of your friends, talking about you

Edited September 12, 2016 by Nemesis

[Parley]

If your privacy settings are set up appropriately they would not be able to access your facebook page.

[silencio]

Which is fine - but on what proof was used to ascertain lying- Facebook? Really?

 

I rarely use Facebook, only to stay in touch with people overseas, but my profile still says i live in the UK. Does that mean my tax return with my Melbourne address is a lie/fraud. Will the ATO be after me?

 

What you're saying has nothing to do with this case as you are living in Australia and just put a UK address on facebook. Assuming you have an Australian employer who notifies ATO anyway how long you've worked for them that particular tax year and amount of salary.

Immigration and other authorities are able to verify your 'physical presence' within Australia anyway by using VEVO and it just takes a sec.

 

Putting in UK, an Ashram in India or Timbuktu as place of residence is completely uninteresting as nobody will investigate as you don't have a pending court case or appeal and assuming that you came her legally and probably didn't use a fake claim or death treat as right of entry to this country. If people do have pending appeals or court cases of course authorities will investigate throughout and fully, research the internet and watch out for contradictory statements as hey that's their job!

 

That applicant put himself in that position and can only blame himself for such a stupid lie and got caught out.

 

For me personally that story leaves behind a bitter aftertaste as there are people who converted and received death treats but fake claims like this makes it for honest religious prosecuted or converted applicants fleeing their country harder to be heard if dishonest people just using that as a loophole for a free ride to Australia.

Edited September 12, 2016 by silencio

[Nemesis]

If your privacy settings are set up appropriately they would not be able to access your facebook page.

It wasn't on one of our pages, it was on someone else's, who had far lower privacy settings.

[blossom]

I know lots of people who sign up and never touch Facebook again for years. Who's to say that's not what happened with this guy and his religion?

[blossom]

It wasn't on one of our pages, it was on someone else's, who had far lower privacy settings.

How did they link it to you though?

[Nemesis]

How did they link it to you though?

Because the person who posted it tagged my OH. DIBP clearly went looking for further evidence after they had started considering a refusal. The refusal letter included reference to a couple of facebook pages of people who had put up posts about us 3-4 years ago. Our pages are locked down very tightly so no one but close friends can see anything, we have tested that since. But if other people post something on their own pages it is subject to the privacy setting on that page.

[starlight7]

Moral of the story is don't trust facebook

[kevsan]

I know lots of people who sign up and never touch Facebook again for years. Who's to say that's not what happened with this guy and his religion?

 

Thats what i took from it, or taking it further, maybe it was deliberately left like that to protect loved ones left behind from persecution. - whether the claim was legitimate or not.

[newjez]

Moral of the story is don't trust facebook

 

I know of people who have been turned down for jobs because of Facebook.

[silencio]

There is no obligation when signing up with Facebook to put down a religion at all. But he did mention his 'former' religion as a Muslim and hasn't changed it after his 'conversion'. Bangladesh has all kinds of religions, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians anyway! So I don't see a problem here as many Bangladeshis intermarry with other religions and are not that strict like in Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh has a 'relaxed' version of Islam.

 

I'm sure - as we don't have the verdict or any more information about this case- that the Tribunal not only made its decision based alone on this fact found on Facebook.

There must be other doubts and contradictions as well, maybe they asked him questions about the Bible and Christianity stuff and he couldn't answer it?

 

I know in my home country some people used to convert to become Jews and they have to undertake an exam like test and attending lessons for 2 years or so. Maybe that guy failed to answer the simplest Bible questions? Or perhaps the Christian community he claimed he belonged to didn't know him. Not enough details in the media to gain a whole picture what the reasons for the refusal were all together (and authorities have no interest to make it public to prevent more fake claims).

Edited September 13, 2016 by silencio