A Chinese fugitive who lied about being an engineer to enter Australia while wanted over the alleged kidnapping and murder of a teenage boy has been given a refugee visa.
The 53-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was refused a protection visa in 1998 and tried to escape from immigration detention in 2004, but has been living in the community since 2012 while carrying out legal action to attempt to stay in Australia at various tribunals and in the High Court.
He appeared in front of the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) in Adelaide earlier this month where he was anonymised as QFHT and had the February 2026 refusal of his 2013 protection visa application overturned by general member Claire Stokes, who found he passed the character test under Section 501 of the Migration Act.
The tribunal heard that QFHT arrived in Australia in February 1997 after falsely stating on his visa application that he was an engineer, and has since admitted that he is not an engineer and has never worked as an engineer, and said “this was the only way [he] could get the visa and leave [China]”.
In May 1997 Chinese authorities issued a warrant for his arrest over crimes allegedly committed in December 1996, and in 2004 an Interpol Red Notice was issued by China, which was then updated in 2013.
Ms Stokes noted in her decision that persons in Australia cannot be arrested on the basis of an Interpol Red Notice alone, and that the requesting country needs to seek extradition and an Australian magistrate needs to issue an extradition arrest warrant.
QFHT tried to convince the tribunal that the Red Notice was no longer in effect as it did not appear on the public database, but Ms Stokes found not all active notices are published, and referred to advice from the government that it remained active, and determined it was a valid notice.
The tribunal heard that the 2004 Red Notice stated that on “20 December 1996, [QFHT] and two accomplices kidnapped a 15-year-old-boy and killed him as they did not receive the ransom of RMB 1,500,000(EUR 145,000) they had demanded”, and that the 2013 addendum specified a murder charge and offence codes as “kidnapping/illegal imprisonment, injury causing death/manslaughter/murder”, and stated the maximum penalty was death.
Interpol China also contacted the Australian Federal Police’s Hong Kong Liaison Office in July 1998 about the alleged crimes and QFHT “obtaining a visa to enter Australia by means of forged documents”, and asked for measures to be taken to deport QFHT from Australia, the tribunal heard.
But Ms Stokes found that QFHT was “entitled to the presumption of innocence”, has “consistently denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, the alleged conduct and maintains his innocence”, and that China did not appear to want to prosecute him.
She found that “no attempt has been made by the Chinese authorities to seek his arrest and extradition” and that it “does not appear that his arrest and formal extradition have ever in fact been sought, notwithstanding that the Chinese authorities have known he has been in Australia for more than 20 years”.
“I do acknowledge that there has likely been an unwillingness by the Australian government to return the Applicant to the PRC in relation to a prosecution of a capital offence and there might be many reasons why there has been inaction on the part of the Chinese authorities,” she wrote in her decision.
“However, the Chinese authorities’ inactivity over the last 20 plus years coupled with the uncontested expert evidence, suggests that the Chinese authorities are no longer interested in the Applicant. Accordingly, I accept that the Chinese authorities are no longer interested in the Applicant for apprehension and prosecution.”
Ms Stokes further found that inconsistencies in the Chinese police investigation “clearly cast doubt over what actually occurred” during the alleged kidnapping and murder, and that it was not proven that QFHT “fled due to his involvement in the [alleged] crimes”.
She also took into account QFHT’s clean criminal record in both Australia and China, 30 good character references, and expert evidence that indicated he was a low risk of reoffending.
“l do not consider that it is reasonable to infer that, if granted a protection visa, the Applicant would be a risk to the Australian community or a segment of it in the future,” she wrote.
“The Tribunal therefore finds that the Applicant does not fail to pass the Character test.”
Header image: An anonymised Interpol Red Notice.
