1509890 (Refugee)

The applicant, a divorced woman from Turkey, sought a protection visa, claiming she feared returning to her home country due to potential harassment and assault from family and community members as a single, divorced woman. She also raised concerns related to her ex-husband's Alevi religious background and her own association with a school linked to the Fethullah Gulen movement. The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of her gender, social group (single, divorced woman), religion, or imputed political opinion, or if she qualified for complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of extensive country information and the evidence presented. It noted inconsistencies in her account regarding her family's knowledge of her ex-husband's Alevi faith, the extent of threats and violence she claimed to have suffered from her family, and the timing of her protection visa application. The Tribunal found that while Turkey has laws promoting gender equality, implementation lags, and gender-based violence remains a concern. However, it concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm due to her status as a divorcee, as divorce is increasingly common and accepted, and she maintained amicable relations with her ex-husband. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that she had a well-founded fear of persecution due to her ex-husband's Alevi religion or her own lay Muslim status, nor that her association with a Gulenist-linked school posed a significant risk of harm, particularly given the time elapsed since her involvement and the nature of the country information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the enumerated Convention reasons, nor that there were substantial grounds for believing she faced a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.