1604053 (Refugee)

1604053 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 4643 (15 October 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBERS:  1604053 and 1611022
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Russian Federation
MEMBER:Luke Hardy
DATE:15 October 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 15 October 2018 at 12:15pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Russian Federation – social group – applicant mother bisexual – state protection available – minority group – converted to Judaism – fear of anti-Semitic treatment – physical and psychological harm – mother and daughter’s mental health issues – attended an Anti- Putin protest – credibility issues – vague and exaggerated claims – no real chance of persecution – decision under review affirmed
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – combined hearing for mother and daughter
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K-LA, 36, 65, 91R, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Schedule 2
CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants are both citizens of the Russian Federation (Russia). They claim to be Jewish. Lacking sufficient evident grounds to be recognised as Jews, they both commenced preparations for Giyur (conversion) after arrival in Australia.
The applicant mother, [Ms A], was previously known as [Ms A’s Alias 1] and [Ms A’s Alias 2] and variants of the same. She claims to have changed her name to [Ms A] in 2009 due to her religious beliefs. She claims she is bisexual and claims fear of repressive policies and practices in Russia towards LGBT people including bisexuals, as well as government condoned anti-Semitism.
The applicant daughter, [Ms B], has recently changed her name to [Ms B Alias 1]. She claims fear of anti-Semitic treatment in Russia along with mistreatment in response to her views about sexual diversity and human rights. She also claims fear of being harmed by her father.
The applicant mother first arrived in Australia on 26 April 2013 on a [temporary] visa. She did not seek asylum here. She departed again on 15 May 2013. She evidently visited [Country 1] in February 2014.
The applicants arrived in Australia together on 5 April 2014 on [another temporary visa]. They lodged their protection visa application on 2 May 2014. The Minister’s delegate refused their application in separate decisions on 24 February 2016, in the case of the applicant daughter, and 23 June 2016, in the case of the applicant mother.
The applicant daughter’s review application was constituted to the presently-constituted Tribunal. Over several months, the Tribunal tried unsuccessfully to schedule a hearing for the applicant daughter, who attempted to have the hearing postponed a number of times due to claimed stress and anxiety, or due to the need to prioritise her examination timetable at school. Requests of this nature were individually considered by me, the presiding Member, but ultimately I required the applicant daughter to appear at a hearing on 5 December 2017. On this occasion, the applicant daughter failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and an interim dismissal letter was sent her. Ultimately, the matter was not dismissed and the applicant daughter appeared before the Tribunal on 1 February 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant mother who, amongst other things, explained how her application had become somehow separated from her daughter’s at the primary decision stage. She said she had asked that their cases be re-combined but this had not occurred at the primary decision stage. Although both applicants were confident of their English skills and displayed competence in the language, the Tribunal hearing was conducted with the occasional assistance of an interpreter in the Russian and English languages.
The applicant mother’s review application was later constituted to the presently-constituted Tribunal. The Tribunal invited her to attend a hearing and she sought a postponement on the grounds of her being treated for anxiety and of her daughter being anxious about having to give further oral evidence. I considered this request but ultimately declined it. The Tribunal nevertheless needed to postpone the hearing because I became unavailable on the originally intended date of the hearing.
The applicant mother appeared for her own hearing before the Tribunal on 27 July 2018. The applicant daughter attended and gave evidence both as an applicant and witness. Again, a Russian-English interpreter was present but was only intermittently required to assist.
Having heard both applicants at both hearings, I conclude very confidently that their claimed psychological and emotional conditions did not in any way prevent them from providing meaningful oral evidence in the matter of their protection visa review applications.
For the purposes of this review, the applicants submitted copies of their primary decision records as made by the delegate in February and June 2016. Those decision records contain uncontested summaries of the applicants’ oral evidence to the delegate.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issues
The issue in this case is whether either of the applicants is entitled to protection as a refugee or, if not, on complementary protection grounds.
For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Claims presented to the then-Immigration Department in the original protection visa application
The applicant mother
The applicant mother is a divorced former [Occupation 1] from Ivanovo, about 250 km from Moscow. She identified as “Jewish” in her protection visa application. She claimed to the Department that she fled Russia fearing persecution for reasons of her bisexuality, which she went on to describe more specifically as “bisexual views”. She claimed that since her marriage in 2000 she experiences “harm” due to her “bisexual views”. She claimed she only married in the first place because her parents insisted and because of negative societal attitudes to “bisexual views”, but added that she also married because she was pregnant at the time to the applicant daughter’s father. She claimed she left Russia to save herself, her daughter, sister and nephew. She claimed the Russian government is unwilling and unable to protect the applicant daughter and herself from physical and psychological harm due to their beliefs, presumably her “bisexual views” but also, although she did not specify, her claimed affiliation with Judaism.
Asked to describe what harm she feared in Russia, the applicant mother said, “I can be imprisoned, can be beaten, can be separated [from] my child, can be accused [of] something […] I didn’t do, can be killed or my daughter can be killed or my sister/nephew [can be killed].” She claimed fear of rape, on behalf of herself, her daughter and her sister. She claimed there was a threat made about burning her father’s house. She claimed that “authorities can prosecute me or my child, also people around my former partner, parents or classmates of my daughter as well.” She said this will happen because of “the political situation in Russia and negative attitude towards bisexual people and people with different views.” She said she and her daughter had already experienced “great harm/stress” due to their beliefs and nationality. She said the Russian authorities will not protect her but could, rather, falsely accuse and imprison her.
Essentially, the applicant mother originally claimed fear of persecution in Russia by non-state agents with tacit or active complicity by the state due to her being bisexual and Jewish. Her claims at this stage were entirely unsupported. She did not elaborate on or substantiate on her unsupported claim about fearing persecution for reasons of her (evidently Russian) nationality, and on the evidence before me this remains a confused and unfounded claim.
The applicant mother indicated that she spent several months in [Country 2] in 2013-2014. She also claimed that she later visited [Country 1] for eight days in February 2014. At other times she travelled in her job as [Occupation 1] to [a range of different countries]: all states signatory to the Refugee Convention (see Attachment A below). She did not seek asylum in any of those countries.
The applicant daughter
The applicant daughter claimed she was bullied at school due to her Jewish beliefs. She claimed she was forced at school to follow Russian Orthodoxy. She claimed she was forbidden from using her full name at school. Due to anti-Semitism there. She claimed that she was pressured by Russian authorities to sign false documents apparently aimed at separating her from her mother, from whom she was “almost separated” in 2011. She claimed she was persecuted in Russia in response to her “different views on social groups and equality”. She claimed to have feared being raped in Russia. She claimed, vaguely, a fear of being the subject of “arrest, false accusations, punishment, degrading treatment, torture, etc.” She claimed fear of being harmed by children at school, “people around” and Russian authorities.
The applicant daughter did not refer to her father, except through indirect references to her fear of being separated from her mother.
Documents submitted to the Department
The applicant mother later submitted additional documents to the Department. One of these is a letter from [a Country 1] national, called [Mr C], who claimed to have met the applicant mother in Moscow in 2011. In the letter it is claimed that the applicant mother spoke of having moved from Ivanovo to Moscow to avoid being contacted by her former husband, who had remained in Ivanovo with their daughter. [Mr C] stated that the applicant mother claimed to have later migrated to [Country 3] “in the belief that she had met a nice man and that this country would provide a god environment for her and her daughter, being a modern democratic country of law.” He said that, according to the applicant mother, things did not work out with the new man [who] turned out to be “controlling” and who exposed the applicants to “weapons and threats”. The applicants submitted several photographs of the applicant daughter being introduced, apparently comfortably, to using a rifle in what appears to be exercises in marksmanship. The letter goes on to describe, rather vaguely, a situation in which the applicants were threatened by the [Country 3] boyfriend with being sent back to Russia. He described the applicant mother having said that she and her daughter left or were turned out of the house inhabited by the boyfriend and forced to seek shelter in crisis centres. He said he heard that the stress became so bad for them that they eventually flew back to Russia. He said the next time he was in contact with the applicant mother was when she was in Australia. This would have been after they arrived here on 5 April 2014. He said in his letter that the applicants visited him in Australia during the applicant daughter’s school holidays and visited him again on a later occasion.
[Mr C] said in the letter that the applicant daughter has adopted the name [Ms B Alias 1], which she was not allowed to use at school in Russia. A copy of her birth certificate, submitted to the Department, shows that she is named [Ms B Alias 1], her father [named], her mother named [Ms A]. Her [passport] identifies her as [Ms B]. Evidence before the Tribunal indicates she formally added [two other names] to her name in 2011.
Another letter is from a [friend in Country 1], who claimed to be a friend of the applicants. [Their friend] said in his letter that the applicants were not able to find safety in Russia or [Country 3]. He said he helped them financially to return to Russia in 2014 to put behind them the stresses they had bene enduring in [Country 3]. He said the applicants visited him in [Country 1] in February 2014 (evidently for eight days) but did not feel safe there due to “previous violence and threats”. He said that, once more back in Russia, the applicant mother got a job hoping her situation (not described in any detail) might be resolved without extreme measures”, her (undetailed) situation only becoming worse, however, causing her and her daughter to leave Russia suddenly “to save their lives”. He went on to say that the applicants were doing well in Australia.
Other documents submitted to the Department attest to the applicants having lived in [Country 3] crisis centres for a period in 2013 and to the applicant daughter having attended a [Country 3] school in 2013. There are also letters from various rabbis in [an area of Australian State 1], attesting to the applicant daughter’s enrolment in the ultra-orthodox [school] and, in relation to both applicants, providing information about their undergoing conversion to Judaism for want, at the time, of sufficient evidence to substantiate rabbinical recognition of their claimed Jewish status.
A letter from [a named organisation] asserts that the applicant daughter was attending the service for treatment of anxiety, and for trauma and insecurity arising from past experience and fear of for her future. The letter suggests explicitly that being allowed to remain in Australia would help the applicant daughter with her psychological issues.
A letter from [a State1 hospital] states that the applicant daughter displayed symptoms of PTSD but was not being treated there “as we did not want to duplicate treatment.
Other letters of social support from various [Australian city 1] residents were submitted to the Department.
The applicants submitted photographic evidence of having observed outdoor Gay Pride celebrations in [Country 4] and Orthodox Jewish gatherings in [Australian city 1]. In some photographs, she and her daughter are holding little rainbow flags. There is a photograph of the applicant daughter outside the entrance to [a Country 4 city landmark] and a copy of a watercolour painting of [her], apparently done as part of [a public event]. The applicants submitted an advertisement for a [a] play about [a] lesbian [woman]. She claimed to have taken the applicant daughter to see this play.
Evidence to the Minister’s delegate
The applicant mother
The delegate’s decision contains evidence to the effect that the applicant mother provided fraudulent evidence to [Country 5] authorities in support of a work visa application and to the effect that in an interview with the then-Immigration Department in 2013 she had acknowledged relying on a friend’s assistance in providing a false bank statement.
The applicant mother provided information to the delegate about her family background: her mother was a [professional], her [grandfather] a hero of Stalingrad, her father a [patient], her parents having divorced around 1999 and her mother moving around that time to [another country].
The delegate asked the applicant mother about her having changed her name from [one name] to [Ms A]. She said she did so legally in in 2008.
Asked about whether she had any actual Jewish antecedents on either her mother’s side or her father’s, the applicant mother told the delegate that she was unaware of any. However, she then stated that it had been her maternal grandmother’s dying wish that the applicant daughter be raised as a Jew. She told the delegate that her maternal grandmother had mentioned, without elaborating, that there had been Jewish ancestry somewhere amongst her predecessors.
The applicant mother told the delegate that she moved her daughter out of the ultra-orthodox Jewish school because in her view it did not reflect Australia’s democratic values. She evidently said it was a good school for her nephew but not for her daughter who had incidentally been offered a scholarship at [a second school] in [Australian city 1].
The delegate asked the applicant mother how she first met her former husband, the father of the applicant daughter. In reply, she said she could not remember. She repeated her claim about her parents having insisting that she marry him. The delegate questioned this claim, putting to her that by 2000, her parents were divorcing and her mother was moving to [another country], whereupon the applicant mother changed her evidence, saying that it had been her maternal grandparents who had pressed her to marry her daughter’s father, and not her own parents.
Asked to describe her former husband’s occupation, the applicant mother said he was “in business”. Asked for more detail, she said she did not know. The delegate put to the applicant mother that Ivanovo is known as a centre for textiles. [Details deleted]. She said he owned a [business], evidently adding that she did not know much more about his occupation.
Asked if she ever communicated with her husband after their divorce in 2005 the applicant mother said she did not. The delegate then put to her that when she applied for [temporary] visas for herself and her daughter she had submitted a letter of consent from her former husband with the applications, the consent to remove the applicant daughter from Russia being valid to December 2014. In response, the applicant mother said that her former husband had no interest in the applicant daughter who, in turn, wanted nothing to do with him.
The delegate asked the applicant mother about her relationship with [Mr C], as he had evidently invited her to visit Australia in 2011, he being an Australian citizen. The delegate presented her with evidence of having said at an interview that she and [Mr C] were in a “romantic relationship”. However, at the protection visa interview, the applicant mother told the delegate that the relationship with [Mr C] had never been romantic. She apparently digressed, saying that [Mr C] had health problems. She said that she had last seen [Mr C] when he visited her and her daughter at their place in [State 1].
Asked about her time in [Country 3], the applicant mother said she had stayed in the home of a [Country 3] man. She said she did not know how to describe her relationship with him because she experienced domestic abuse from him and discovered evidence to the effect that he was still married to another woman. She appeared later to give substantially different evidence about this, saying that she met this man, identified as “RS” in the primary decision, and that he said he “would help her” so that she could come to [Country 3] although he was married to someone else.
The primary decision cites two documents submitted by the applicants relating to the applicant mother having been married from [June] 2012 and residing in [Country 3] from November of the same year.
The delegate discussed various photographs of guns submitted by the applicants, and the suggestion in her evidence about the guns constituting a threatening and controlling presence in her life with RS. Some of the photographs depict the applicant mother’s nephew playing with handguns in RS’s house. The applicant mother told the delegate that her sister and nephew made a number of visits, staying with her at the house in [Country 3]. Asked why they would visit a number of times if the domestic environment were so dangerous, she said they had visited her in order “to help her”.
The applicant mother described the contents of untranslated [Country 3] letters attesting to her contact with various crisis centres in [Country 3] in the latter part of 2013. She told the delegate that she returned to Russia in November 2013, apparently a year after she had originally moved in with RS.

Regarding her claimed “bisexual views”, the applicant mother said she first became aware of these at school in Ivanovo where she had had a friend called [Ms D]. However, she evidently said that her liaison with [Ms D] had just been an instance of sexual experimentation. She also said she met a woman called [Ms E] in a bar in [Country 5] but declined to provide the delegate with any more information about their liaison due to [Ms E] being a senior executive. The applicant mother referred the delegate to a photograph of her [Occupation 1]’s ID lanyard, saying that she appeared as she did in the ID photo therein because were she to dress or groom herself according to her bisexual orientation she would not be able to hold employment.
The applicant mother drew attention to her attendance as an observer or audience member at gay, gay-themed and gay-friendly events in [Country 4] and [Australian city 1], saying that all this was evidence of their views supportive of LGBTI persons. The delegate observed that in all of these activities, the applicants were spectators rather than participants.
Asked about her claimed fear of sexual assault, the applicant mother said her sister had been raped on one occasion in Moscow; however, she was vague about the details as to when this happened and when her sister told her about it, although she indicated that this was a reason why she and her daughter travelled to Australia with her sister and nephew, seeming to suggest it happened in early 2014.
All of the evidence presented to the delegate is listed on folios 270 and 271, verso folio 271 and verso folio 272 in the Department’s file. I have seen and considered all of this material.
In summary, the applicant mother claims fear of harm in Russia for separate and cumulative reasons of being bisexual and Jewish.
The applicant daughter
The applicant daughter told the delegate that she lived with her maternal grandmother in Ivanovo until the latter died in 2013, after that moving in with her father who she does not like. She said her father used to discourage her from associating with her mother due to her mother’s “beliefs”. She said that conflict between her parents grew when the matter of her changing schools arose, although she was unable to recall when this was. She said she remembered being treated differently and that she had asked to be moved to a Jewish school. She said she had also thought, back in Russia, that a Jewish school would be more accepting of her mother’s “difference”. She said that she faced bullying at her school not just from other students but also from their parents who said she was just like her mother. Asked to describe I detail just what characteristic of her mother’s had attracted all the scorn at school, she said “we” were different. Asked to explain what that meant, she implied that her Jewishness was the issue: she said that she had been forced by circumstance to attend a Christian school because there were no private (or Jewish) schools in Ivanovo. This claim, I note, is contradicted by independent country information.[1] I note there are also several Jewish schools in Moscow.[2]
[1] Cablegate: Jewish Life in Ivanovo, citing a cable from the American Embassy in Moscow to the State Department in Washington DC, 22 February 2008,
[2] “RUSSIA: JEWISH DAY SCHOOLS IN MOSCOW, RUSSIA,” Kosher Delight,
The applicant daughter said she was not sure if her mother had ever talked to the school principal or other school authorities about the treatment she received at school.
The applicant daughter went on to say that at the second school in Ivanovo, her mother’s Jewishness and past relationship with a woman had been the basis for the perception there that she was “different”. She said she suspected her father had spread this information locally.
The applicant told the delegate that her mother’s second husband [was from Country 3]. She also said her mother had had a relationship with a woman in [Country 3] in 2012. Speaking as a witness, the applicant mother said that her second husband had been an officer in the [Country 1] military who was controlling and unstable. The delegate questioned why the applicant mother had referred to herself in her own protection visa application simply as having been a divorcee since 2005 and, in reply, she simply said she moved to [Country 3] in 2012 to provide a better life for herself and her daughter. The delegate then observed that, on the evidence so far, she had left her daughter behind in Russia, the latter evidently residing with her grandmother until 2013 and then with her father. At most, the applicant daughter had only ever visited [Country 3].
The applicant mother said that her trip to Australia had in no way been motivated by any custody issues relating to her daughter.
The applicant daughter initially said she did not think her father knew she was currently in Australia. However, asked the same question again, after the delegate referred to her father having evidently permitted her to travel out of Russia for several months in 2014, she said he did know she was here and that she had written to him to say that she was well. She then said that she does not wish to contact him again.
The delegate asked the applicant daughter for more information about the alleged false document that she alleged the authorities had forced her to sign. In reply, she said the police came to her school and obliged her to sign a form. She said she did not know what the form contained and only “thinks” she signed it. She said she was only [age] or [age] years old at the time and conjectured that the form related to her mother. She said this was the only time she had ever been approached by the Russian police. She did not appear to provide any detail suggesting coercion.
Asked to explain her claim about almost having been separated from her mother in 2011, the applicant daughter claimed her father had tried to separate her from her mother. She said that after she changed schools in 2011 her father used to pick her up in the afternoon and drive her to her grandmother’s. She claimed he once drove her to his place where she stayed a few days. She claimed he took her back to her grandmother when the police and her mother intervened. She said she did not remember much about this episode.
Asked to discuss her views about support for social groups and equality the applicant daughter said her family would be treated differently because her mother had had a relationship with another woman. She said that although the parents of other children were against bullying they did not stop them from bullying her. She claimed to have raised the matter of bullying with her father who, she said, did not do anything about it. Asked if he had said anything to her she said she could not remember what he said.
The applicant daughter claimed that arguments between her father and mother increased in 2013 when she moved to [Country 3]. She claimed that her father created the situation in which conflict surrounded her and that her mother tried unsuccessfully to ameliorate things.
The delegate asked the applicant why her father would cause harm to her; in reply, she said that her father was trying to hurt her mother, not her.
In summary, the perpetrators of harm in the applicant daughter’s account are Russian school children and teenagers bullying her for reasons of her Jewish identification and sympathies towards members of the LGBT minority including, she says, her mother. The adult world including parents, school, civic and national authorities are tacit enablers of the harm.
Independent country information
Sexual orientation issues
Russian law does not prohibit discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation.[3] Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1993,[4] and Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that Russia supported 2010 recommendations from the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe to “end discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity”. [5] However, a number of sources suggest that Russia does not adequately protect the rights of LGBT persons, either in law or in practice. A 2012 paper by the Asylum Research Consultancy notes that Russia’s violence and hate speech laws “do not refer to sexual orientation or gender identity and do not recognise sexual orientation neither [sic] gender identity as aggravating factor”.[6]
[3] International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Intersex Association, ILGA-Europe Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe 2011, Gay Law Net, 2011, p.137, GlobalGayz.com, Russia, Europe, Asylum Research Consultancy, Country-of-origin information to support the adjudication of asylum claims from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (‘LGBTI’) asylum-seekers, 17 July 2012, UNHCR Refworld
[4] ‘Gay activists arrested at unauthorized Moscow protest’, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 27 May 2012, UNHCR Refworld,
[5] Williamson, H, Russia: Investigate Attack on Gay-Friendly Bar, Human Rights Watch, 12 October 2012,
[6] Asylum Research Consultancy, Country-of-origin information to support the adjudication of asylum claims from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (‘LGBTI’) asylum-seekers, 17 July 2012, UNHCR Refworld, p.3
The following recent information has been reported by the US Department of State[7]:
[7] “Russia” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017, US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2018,
Acts of Violence, Discrimination, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
During the year there were reports of both societal and government violence motivated by the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim. Human rights activists and NGOs reported torture and killings of LGBTI persons in the North Caucasus by security services (see section 1.a. for information on Chechnya).
Openly gay men were particular targets of violence, and police often failed to respond adequately to such incidents…
There were reports police abused and harassed individuals whom they perceived to be LGBTI. A report by the LGBT Network in 2016 documented 21 cases of alleged violations of LGBTI person’s rights by law enforcement officials in 2015.
On May 11, authorities detained five LGBTI activists in Moscow while they attempted to submit to the prosecutor general’s office a petition signed by two million persons calling for an investigation into the torture of gay men in Chechnya. Authorities charged the activists with an administrative violation for holding a public event without permission; they were released later in the day.
LGBTI individuals often declined to report attacks against them due to fears police would subject them to mistreatment or publicize their sexual orientation or gender identity. There continued to be reports of groups and individuals luring gay men on fake dates to beat and rob them.
The law criminalizes the distribution of “propaganda” of nontraditional sexual relations to minors and effectively limits the rights of free expression and assembly for citizens who wished to advocate publicly for rights or express the opinion that homosexuality is normal. Examples of what the government considered LGBTI propaganda included materials that “directly or indirectly approve of persons who are in nontraditional sexual relationships” (see section 2.a.).
Since 2015 the Ministry of Justice added at least three LGBTI organizations to the foreign agents’ list (see section 2.b., Freedom of Association), including the St. Petersburg NGO Sfera, which provided social and legal services to members of the LGBTI community, and Rakurs, an LGBTI advocacy organization in Arkhangelsk.
Many events planned by members of the LGBTI community were officially unsanctioned and conducted in private due to security concerns. Nevertheless, in 2016 the LGBT Network reported that in at least four cases during the year LGBTI-related events were disrupted, sometimes through anonymous calls alleging bomb threats.
Moscow authorities refused to allow a gay pride parade for the 12th consecutive year, notwithstanding a 2010 ECHR ruling that the denial violated the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom from discrimination.
Police stopped as many as 300 persons from participating in an LGBTI pride event called Polar Pride scheduled for January 29 in the town of Salekhard. On September 24, authorities briefly detained three individuals crossing the border back into Russia by bus following participation in a [Country 1] gay pride event.
A homophobic campaign continued in state-controlled media in which officials, journalists, and others called LGBTI persons “perverts,” “sodomites,” and “abnormal” and conflated homosexuality with pedophilia.
LGBTI persons reported heightened societal stigma and discrimination, which some attributed to increasing official promotion of intolerance and homophobia. Activists asserted that the majority of LGBTI persons hid their sexual orientation or gender identity due to fear of losing their jobs or homes as well as the threat of violence. Medical practitioners reportedly continued to limit or deny LGBTI persons health services due to intolerance and prejudice. There were reports that high levels of employment discrimination against LGBTI persons persisted (see section 7.d.) and that LGBTI persons continued to seek asylum abroad due to the domestic environment.
During the year a chain of shops called Khleb i Sol (Bread and Salt), hung signs in their shop windows reading, “No Entry for [Slur Referring to LGBTI Persons].” In response to complaints from members of the public in the city of Perm about the sign, local police determined that there was no grounds for an investigation because they considered the slur to be a scientific term and thus inoffensive. According to press reports, on September 25, the Perm regional human rights ombudsman urged the local prosecutor’s office to investigate the matter.
Although the law allows transgender individuals to change their names and gender classifications on government documents, they faced difficulties doing so because the government had not established standard procedures and many civil registry offices denied their requests. When their documents failed to reflect their gender accurately, transgender persons often faced harassment by law enforcement officers and discrimination in accessing health care, education, housing, transportation, and employment.
There were some isolated positive developments during the year for the LGBTI community. In some instances courts found in favor of LGBTI persons seeking to exercise their human rights. According to Human Rights Watch, in December 2016 three men attacked and forced a transgender woman from Uzbekistan into a car where they gang-raped her. The perpetrators filmed it and extorted money from her by threatening to publish the video. In May a court in Murmansk found the men guilty of extortion with the use of violence and sentenced them to four years in prison. They were not charged with rape, but the court did recognize it as a hate crime on the basis of her gender identity.
On August 4, the Pervomayskiy District Court in Omsk ruled that a sport shop should pay Eduard Myra 30,000 rubles ($514) in compensation for denying him employment on the basis of his “feminine manner” and being “too well groomed,” which the company stated suggested he was part of the LGBTI community.
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
Jews and anti-Semitism in Russia
I have had regard to the following information reported by the US Department of State[8]:
The [Russian] constitution provides for freedom of religion, equal rights irrespective of religious belief, and the rights to worship and profess one’s religion. The law states government officials may prohibit the activity of a religious association for violating public order or engaging in “extremist activity.” The law lists Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism as the country’s four “traditional” religions and recognizes the special role of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). The law distinguishes between “religious groups,” which have the right to conduct worship services but may not engage in many other activities, and two categories of “religious organizations,” which obtain legal status through registration with the government to conduct a full range of religious and civil functions …The government increasingly fined and issued deportation orders for foreign nationals engaging in religious activity, including a rabbi, four Korean citizen Baptists, and an Indian citizen Pentecostal pastor.
Media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and religious groups reported a number of attacks on individuals based on their religious identity. There were physical assaults on Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims, as well as other attacks on individuals, possibly based on both their ethnicity and religion. NGOs reported overall there were fewer instances of violence based on religious identity than in prior years … Acts of vandalism motivated by religious hatred continued to occur, including against Jewish, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Buddhist religious sites.
The U.S. Ambassador and embassy officials met with a range of government officials to discuss the treatment of religious minorities, particularly the use of the law on extremism to restrict the activities of religious minorities, and the revocation of registration of some minority religious organizations….
[8] “Russia” International Religious Freedom Report for 2017, US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2018
The same source recently provided more detail about activities in Russia that have been deemed to be anti-Semitic[9]:
[9] “Russia” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017, US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 2018,
Anti-Semitism
The 2010 census estimated the Jewish population at slightly more than 150,000. In 2015, however, the president of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia stated that the actual Jewish population was nearly one million.
A number of leading figures in the Jewish community reported the level of anti-Semitism in the country was decreasing, but that during the year some political and religious figures made anti-Semitic remarks publicly.
In their alternative report on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) by the Russian Federation for the 93rd Session of the UN CERD Committee (July 31-August 11), the NGOs SOVA Center, Krym SOS, International Federation for Human Rights, and Memorial Antidiscrimination Center noted the continued use of anti-Semitic statements by political figures. The report noted that, to that date, there had been no violent anti-Semitic attacks.
In late November, the Investigative Committee announced that the investigation into the killing of Tsar Nicholas II--reopened in 2015--would review the theory that it may have been a “ritual killing,” referring to the conspiracy theory that Jews engage in “ritual killings” of Christians. Bishop Tikhon of the Russian Orthodox Church also publicly supported the investigation of the theory. Aleksandr Boroda, chairman of the Chabad Lubavitch Federation of Jewish Organizations of Russia, spoke out against the implicit anti-Semitism of Tikhon’s statement.
In February authorities ordered the deportation of Rabbi Ari Edelkopf on the grounds that he posed a risk to national security after he lost an appeal to the Central District Court in Sochi. In March the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the decision. In December 2016 the Ministry of Internal Affairs canceled Edelkopf’s residency permit in Sochi. Edelkopf was a dual U.S. and Israeli citizen who moved to the country in 2002.
On January 23, State Duma deputy speaker Pyotr Tolstoy used anti-Semitic rhetoric to criticize continuing protests against the handover of St. Isaac’s Cathedral in St. Petersburg to the Russian Orthodox Church. He said protesters were “continuing the work” of their ancestors “who destroyed our cathedrals after jumping over the Pale of Settlement with revolvers in 1917.” Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia leaders condemned the statement as an anti-Semitic reference to conspiracy theories that Jews fomented the Bolshevik Revolution. Tolstoy expressed surprise and stated he was “misunderstood.” State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin backed Tolstoy, while the head of the Presidential Human Rights Council, Mikhail Fedotov, criticized the remarks, expressing surprise at hearing a “respected parliamentarian repeating a favorite thesis of anti-Semites.” The government did not censure or punish Tolstoy.
On February 12, while criticizing opponents of the transfer of St. Isaac’s Cathedral, State Duma deputy Vitaliy Milonov stated, “Christians survived despite the fact that the ancestors of Boris Vishnevskiy and Maksim Reznik boiled us in cauldrons and fed us to animals.” Russian Jewish Congress president Yuriy Kaner told media, “It is clear…that these lawmakers (Vishnevsky and Reznik) are of Jewish descent and that he means ‘Jews’ by his statement.” The spokesman of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia, Borukh Gorin, told media, “For a State Duma deputy, it is unacceptable to make such irresponsible statements.”
In July, Gorin condemned a ruling by a Sochi court that labeled as extremist a book penned by a 19th-century rabbi, asserting that part of a judicial policy in Sochi was to limit the growth of Jewish spiritual life there.

Regarding access by Jews in Russia to education and cultural connection, I note that, in November 2015, the City of Ivanovo officially opened a new synagogue and Jewish cultural centre, the event reportedly celebrated by a local Jewish community “now on the rebound after years of stagnant activity”.[10] The new centre reportedly includes classrooms, facilities for a Sunday Hebrew school, a kosher kitchen and other facilities, with a mikvah (ritual immersion bath) scheduled for construction there as well.
[10] “Jews of Ivanovo, Russia, Celebrate a Place of Their Own,” Chabad Lubavitch Headquarters News, 25 November 2015,
The Jewish community in Ivanovo is evidently very small. According to a 2012 survey, 46.5% of the population of Ivanovo Oblast professed adherence to the Russian Orthodox Church; that, I note, is less than half of the local population. 8.4% of the population acknowledged being Orthodox Christian believers who do not belong to church or are members of non-Russian Orthodox churches, 1.8% identified as unaffiliated generic Christians, and 0.5% of the population said they were adherents of the Slavic native faith (Rodnovery) movement. 0.5% of Ivanovo resident said they were Muslims. Meanwhile, 28.1% of the population declared itself to be "spiritual but not religious", 12.9% identified as atheist and 1.3% follows other religions or did not give an answer to the question. Ivanovo’s Jews appear to be in the last 1.3%.[11]
[11] "Arena: Atlas of Religions and Nationalities in Russia," Sreda, 2012
I note that an open attack by a gang on some Jewish individuals in Ivanovo in 2007 caused a delay in the Jewish community’s efforts to establish a new rabbi there.[12] However, I have not been able to find independent evidence of more recent manifestations of anti-Semitism in that city.
[12] “Ivanovo, Russia - Jewish Leaders Can't Find New Rabbi After Attacks,” Vos Iz Neias?, 29 June 2007,
The Jewish population of Moscow is reported to be around 100,000, or around half of Russia’s total Jewish population.[13]
[13] “A Guide to Jewish Moscow,” Students Study Abroad, 25 September 2013,
Submissions to the Tribunal
The applicants’ Tribunal files contain a number of character reference letters, evidence of the applicant mother’s vocational training endeavours in Australia, letters relating to the applicant daughter’s diagnosed anxiety and PTSD issues, evidence of her academic achievements, examples of her art work and photographs of her girlfriend-boyfriend relationship with a male student of similar age.
A letter from the applicant mother’s sister describes both the applicant mother and the author as having some LGBT friends, including bisexual ones, with some of whom the applicant mother socialised at clubs in Russia. The letter does not specifically state that the applicant mother is herself bisexual.
Included amongst the submissions is a letter of an August 2013 statement of consent from the applicant daughter’s father permitting her to depart Russia “and to become a permanent resident of [Country 3]”.
I note an emailed statement from an evidently lesbian couple [in] which the authors state that the applicant mother visited them in St Petersburg in July 2007 with a [girlfriend]. The authors of the letter state that they were contemporaneously aware of the applicant mother’s relationship with “[Ms E]” while she was studying abroad (in [Country 5]) in 2009.
Submissions include an Ivanovo local prosecutor’s 2011 decision in the matter of a complaint made by the applicant mother about her husband having hit her during an argument in 2010 in which he was trying to prevent her from having contact with the applicant daughter.
A letter from [an individual] attests to the severe stress experienced by the applicants at the time of the applicant mother’s break-up with her second husband in [Country 3]. The author asserts that he became aware of the situation having threatened the applicant daughter’s welfare.
In a 23 February 2018 submission, the applicant mother states that her former husband in Russia was angry about their divorce and threatened to use her bisexuality against her. She described demands he made for money and said there were occasions between 2008 and 2010 when he was violent. She said the police once arrested her when she tried to visit the applicant daughter. She said the applicant daughter had to change schools in 2011 due to bullying and was also taken by her father to live at “an unknown address”. She said police did not help her to locate the applicant daughter. She said that she was able to add the applicant daughter’s Jewish names to her birth certificate in 2011 although her daughter’s school refused to recognise this name change and did not accommodate her Jewish identity when it came to observance of Russian Orthodox holidays, etc. She said the school did not ask her about her beliefs or opinions. She claimed that police stopped her at a 6 May 2012 protest against Vladimir Putin’s then-recent re-election and forced her to sign a document stating that she was a participant in the protest. She said the police were rude and caused her to fear arrest in the event of talking back to them on the occasion. She claimed her marriage in [Country 3] was not legal because her second husband was still married to another woman at the time. She said that locals in Ivanovo threw stones at her sister and denounced her family as “lesbians” during a visit to their grandmother there. She described having taken the applicant daughter to the Museum of Tolerance in Moscow in 2013, apparently in support of her identification with Judaism. She said that the applicant daughter told friends in Russia about her attendance at gay pride events in Western Europe and faced a new wave of bullying as a result. She said she and her sister were accused by local mothers in Moscow in 2014 of being in a lesbian relationship with each other. She said the women attacked them. She said that when police came to investigate they demanded that she and her sister leave in spite of their being the victims of the attack. She said that she was attacked by two men in Moscow on 4 March 2014, that the police were initially helpful but withdrew assistance. She said her sister was raped on 3 April 2014 by a group of men who called her a lesbian who needed “improvement”. She said she and her sister were lucky at the time to have Australian visas in their passports (which they had previously obtained, she later told me, with a view to coming here for a “[trip]” at some stage) and thus flew out of Russia with their children the following day. She said that relocation within Russia was not a viable option.
An email letter from a [Mr F] in Moscow asserts that the applicant mother has shared with him and others her anti-government views. [Mr F] states that he used to warn the applicant mother of the dangers of publicly opposing the government. He says his warning of such danger was borne out when the applicant mother “suffered from brutal physical abuse (harassment) inflicted by the OMON forces during the Bolotnya protests in Moscow, 6.5.2012”. Discussing this treatment in detail, he says he saw the applicant mother’s eyes red and irritated due to pepper spray having been used by police on the occasion. He says the applicant mother attended another protest in March 2014 and had to leave Russia in April 2014.
I note that the applicant mother did not herself mention the Volotnaya protest of 6 May 2012 in her own claims and evidence to the Department. Anti-Putin “political opinion” was not originally a basis for her protection visa application.
Several letters submitted to the Tribunal in the applicant daughter’s case detail the applicant mother’s efforts to become a qualified [occupation] in [Australian city 1].
Evidence given at hearings before the Tribunal
The applicant daughter
The applicant daughter gave evidence under an oath taken on the Torah.
The applicant daughter told me she considers herself to be Jewish due to a great grandmother having been Jewish. She said her parents have joint custody of her.
When I asked the applicant daughter what would happen to her in the event of return to Russia, she said she did not have a good relationship with her father and would not be able to stay with other relatives. Relevant to this, her mother said she was barely aware of any other relatives living in Russia.
In view of her having lived for a short time in Moscow, I asked the applicant daughter if it might be reasonable, safe and practical for her and her mother to relocate there, in the event that she did not wish to live with or close to her father, or to other people such as her former classmates in Ivanovo. In reply, she said she had not been to a Russian school since primary school. She also said that authorities would probably have to notify her father in the event of her return to Russia.
Contrary to what she indicated in her protection visa application form (at Q.57 at f.76) and in evidence to the delegate, the applicant daughter told me her father does not know she is in Australia. When I suggested to her that she told the delegate her father knows she is here in Australia, she uttered a sound but did not form a word. I note that she reportedly told the delegate she had written to her father once from Australia and did not wish to contact him again, whereas she said in a section of her protection visa application form (at Q.57) that she had bene I touch with him from here a few times. Overall, and in various ways, the applicant daughter’s evidence about not being in contact with her father struck me as being inconsistent and evasive.
I asked the applicant daughter about her time in [Country 3]. She said she visited there a few times. I put to her that this suggested her father had repeatedly permitted her to travel there, and she said, “Yes.”
The applicant daughter said that while her father was somewhat overbearing it was “other problems” that caused her and her mother to come to Australia. Asked what these other problems were, she said she was talking about her mother’s issues. Elaborating on this, she did not refer to her mother’s claims about bisexuality or “bisexual views”; rather, she said her mother “had a husband in [Country 3].”
I then asked the applicant daughter to give me more details about her school life in Russia. She said she had gone to a state school in Ivanovo. She said there had been anti-Semitic bullying. I asked her if her mother had ever gone to speak to the school principal about this and she said, “I think she did.” Since she had resided for a period in Moscow with her mother, I asked her if she could not have gone to a Jewish day school there and, in reply, she said she did not know of any. I put to her that there appeared evidently to be a number of Jewish day schools in Moscow. I raised the subject of relocating to Moscow to attend school there but the applicant daughter did not engage with this proposition.
I asked the applicant daughter about the document she was requested to sign at the age of nine or ten. She said she could not recall what it might have been about. I asked her if any noticeable consequences ever arose from her having signed that document and she said she did not know. I presume from this that the applicant daughter has no notion of any potential significance related to this episode, not even after subsequent opportunities to discuss it with both of her parents. I asked her where her mother was at the time, and she said she did not know. I note, meanwhile, that the applicants’ original protection visa application indicates that the applicant mother was studying at [a university in Country 5] around this time and was a [freelancer] in years surrounding her period of study.
I asked the applicant daughter if, while in Russia, she had ever discussed issues of particular relevance to LGBT persons and, in reply, she said that whereas her mother might have done so, she herself had not. I asked her how old she had been when she last left Russia and she said she had bene about twelve. The mother said that she and her daughter went to see a gay pride event in [a foreign city] in August 2013. I asked the applicant daughter if she felt any need or reason to support LGBT issues and she said she did not know, but then attached some relevance to her aunt being involved [in a particular] industry. The applicant mother told me she had been in a relationship with a Russian woman in 2007-8. This was new evidence, not previously provided to the Department. She said that she entered into that relationship after her divorce. She did not suggest, let alone in any detail, that she faced harm, let alone serious harm due to having entered into, or having been in, that relationship.
The applicant daughter told me her mother resided in [Country 3] in 2012 and 2013. She said they visited [Country 1] for one week and then went back to reside in Russia (in Moscow, evidently) for a number of months.
I asked why the applicants did not seek asylum in [Country 1]. Replying to this, the applicant mother said that she did not see [Country 3] as a safe country in which to seek asylum because, in her view, of its child welfare system. Then she said she did not know she had been able to seek asylum in [Country 3]. It struck me as being highly incongruous that in the process of considering whether she was able to seek asylum in [Country 3], the applicant mother gathered enough information to form a view about child welfare but not enough information to help her ascertain that there were even any pathways to asylum in [Country 3].
The applicant mother said it did not even look safe in [Country 1], but provided no detail to support this broad assertion. She indicated that she did not seek asylum there because she had hoped that there would be a chance to stay in Russia.
Towards the end of the hearing, I asked the applicant daughter if the issue of interrupting her Australian education might be the main issue in the two cases before me. In reply, she said that education in Australia is better than in Russia. She said there is no discrimination on the basis of political opinion or against Jews at the school she currently attends.
The applicant mother
The applicant mother gave evidence under an oath taken on the Bible.
I asked the applicant mother what persecution she might face in Russia. Interestingly, she responded by saying that she was afraid for her daughter: she said that she did not know what her daughter might do if she returns to Russia; she said she was afraid her daughter would be suicidal because she had been living “under constant threat” for many years. She then went on to say that if she goes back to Russia she will be persecuted by the authorities and by people in general due to her political and bisexual opinions. She said that nowadays, when one returns to Russia, one’s file is checked. Although she evidently said “nowadays”, she did not say when this practice started, but she did say that in the circumstances, she fears torture and death on return to Russia. I note that the applicant mother returned to Russia in 2014 after absence in [Country 3] and [Country 1] and would have returned several times while working as a [Occupation 1] prior to her move to [Country 3]. In the circumstances argued here, of her file having been checked upon return, she was not tortured or, obviously, killed, and nothing else potentially relevant to her case evidently happened either. She was able to leave Russia legally again in 2014.
I asked the applicant mother to give me more detail about her claims relating to “political opinion” and in response she said that before she left Moscow, and Russia, in 2012, she went to a rally in protest against Vladimir Putin. She said that some people were arrested at that event. She seemed to be referring to the Volotnaya Square protest and crackdown of 6 May 2012. I asked the applicant mother if she had any evidence to support her claim about having attended that event, and she said she could possibly ask some people in Russia although she has lost contact with people there. I put to the applicant mother that she did not appear to be claiming that she was ever mistreated at or as a result of the protest and, in reply, she said, “We were stopped.” She did not go into any detail. Her evidence about this episode differed from that of her witness [Mr F] who claimed in writing that he had seen her at the protest red-eyed and teary from pepper spray deployed by the riot police. In any event, evidently, the applicant mother was not prevented from leaving Russia in 2012, nor were she or her daughter detained upon entry into Russia in 2014, from which country they again departed legally and without difficulty.
I asked the applicant mother to explain to me what she meant by her “bisexual views” or “bisexual opinion”. In response, she said that she had had sexual relations with women in Russia, [Country 5] and Australia. She said that her relationship with one of these women went on while she was married. She said that sexual relations between adults are a private matter that should not be regulated. She said that, because there are laws against the distribution of “propaganda” of nontraditional sexual relations to minors, there is a risk that her actions and her bisexuality could be regarded as influencing her daughter. Relevant to this claim, I note that the age of majority in Russia is 18,[14] and that the applicant daughter will no longer be a minor in Russia come next June.
[14]
I put to the applicant mother that the Russian authorities do not appear ever to have noticed that she was in relationships with women, or that she had “bisexual views”, or that she was allowing her daughter to be aware and tolerant in relation to such matters. In response, she said her daughter was nevertheless bullied at school. Then she said that her daughter’s father knew her “opinions” and kept silent because she “paid money”. Overall, the applicant mother’s evidence about her ex-husband’s role in spreading rumours about her struck me as being somewhat confused: she portrayed him, alternately, as the source of the rumours and as having been amenable, for a price, to keeping quiet. Essentially she was claiming that she was a victim of blackmail perpetrated by her former husband, which struck me as being at odds with the ex-husband consenting to let the applicant wife settle his daughter in her custody and care in [Country 3]. Ultimately, I can accept that the applicant mother co-operated in supporting the applicant daughter financially, but I do not accept on the evidence before me that the money paid by the applicant mother to her ex-husband had anything to do with suppressing information about her sexual orientation.
The applicant mother made a new claim to the effect that Russians who seek asylum abroad are viewed as enemies of Russia on return. Again, she said she and her daughter would face persecution and death. Her claims on this subject were entirely unsupported. I therefore asked the applicant mother about the claimed fear of being persecuted for reasons of having sought asylum abroad. Addressing this, she acknowledged that she and her daughter have always been legally residing in Australia.
I put to the applicant mother, with her daughter present, that the protection visa application process in Australia is totally confidential and that it was not easy to see how or why Russian authorities would suspect that either of them had sought asylum here. In response, the applicant mother said, “People do talk. Many Russian grandmothers gossip.” Her position struck me as a baldly speculative one. The applicant mother then told me about a man who “got close” to her in Australia and who later appeared in a photograph with Vladimir Putin. She seemed to be suggesting that facts about her having sought asylum in Australia could have reached the Russian authorities via this person. Reviewing this claim, there seemed to be nothing in the facts suggesting that the applicants’ asylum application would have been divulged to Russian authorities or that this fact would give rise to a real chance of the applicants being persecuted.

I drew the applicant mother’s attention to her having taken an oath on the Christian Bible at the commencement of the hearing, rather than on the Torah. In response, she said she used the Bible even though the hearing attendant especially provided a Torah to her daughter on request. I put to the applicant mother that according to evidence to the Immigration Department she had been undergoing conversion to Judaism in 2014. In response, the applicant mother digressed: she spoke about a rabbi who unsuccessfully opposed her daughter changing schools and the kindness of the teacher who was suffering from [a medical condition] when he offered the scholarship to attend [the second school].
I put to the applicant mother that the consent her former husband had given for her daughter to emigrate to [Country 3] appeared to indicate that he is no longer interested in having her live under his control. In response, she said she herself does not try to keep her daughter from communicating with her former husband in Russia, and that her daughter herself wants no contact with him. I put to her that no-one appeared to be under any obligation to live with or even near her ex-husband in Russia. The applicant mother then said that her past problems with her ex-husband went on a long time. She then appeared to digress, saying that she did not have a normal job matching her qualifications. Then she contradicted a claim she made moments earlier, saying that she brought her daughter to Australia because she hates her ex-husband, adding that his brother is a pimp to whom she does not want her daughter to be exposed.
I asked the applicant mother what she had meant when she told the delegate that her former employer [prevented] her from expressing her bisexual orientation through her work attire. I asked her to explain what “bisexual dress” might mean from her point of view. In reply, she said that bisexual clothing involves open garments in bright colours in combinations such as pink and green, yellow and blue. I asked her about the clothes she was wearing at the hearing: these involved a skirt, beige wool or cashmere cardigan, a scarf and some pearls; she explained that her attire at the hearing was a response to the cold weather. I said to her that I still did not quite understand the claim she had made to the delegate, as she appeared to be required to wear [a] company uniform according to a lanyard ID submitted in evidence to the Department. In, reply, the applicant mother said that while she worked for the [company] she was not allowed to wear motifs like small pink ribbons in solidarity with LGBT causes. I put to her that this might be the policy of any company anywhere in the world that imposes a dress code on contracted workers. In response she said that in Russia one can be killed for wearing such motifs.

100. The applicant mother told me she sometimes goes with friends to [particular] pubs in [Australian city 1]. I put to her that these venues are generally known to be male gay social venues, and she said that both venues are friendly places for men and women to visit. She also said that because her daughter was attending an orthodox Jewish school she had tried not to over-develop her pro-LGBT profile.
101. The applicant mother referred me to photographs of her attending a recent [Australian city 1 LGBTI event] with the applicant daughter. She said that they [participated in the event].
102. I asked about the fear of the applicant daughter being sexually assaulted in Russia. The applicant mother said this arose from the fact that her own sister had been raped the day before they flew to Australia. She said she was inside her sister’s home at the time. She said her sister came home bruised and weeping. She said she gave her sister a glass of vodka. She said her sister told her she had been raped by strangers who taunted her with homophobic slurs. She said that conditions in Russia had intensified over the years increasing her daughter’s risk of being sexually assaulted there. She said this was the “last straw” and made her decide to use visas she, her daughter, sister and nephew had all previously obtained (on 20 March 2014) with a view to coming here for a “[temporary] trip”.
Additional independent country information
Human rights agencies in Russia
103. I note that there is a multitude of NGOs operating in Russia to monitor and challenge the government’s performance with regard to human rights. These include the Russia Glasnost Defence Foundation and Sakharov Centre. There is a Moscow Research Center for Human Rights (MRCHR), set up in 1993, which operates as an umbrella group for about a dozen human rights nongovernmental organisations; it was set up in 1993. Several of Russia’s NGOs are completely home-grown, while other receive donations from outside Russia. In recent years, laws have been passed to declare as “foreign agents” those NGOs that receive funds from abroad. The Sakharov Centre is one such “foreign agent”. As reported by Deutsche Welle[15],
[15] “NGOs in Russia: Battered, but unbowed,” Deutsche Welle, 21 November 2017,
This restriction is a direct consequence of a law that came into force five years ago: on 21 November 2012. Under the law, non-governmental organizations which are politically active and receive overseas funding are obliged to register as "foreign agents." In addition, they are required to make this status publicly visible, on their websites, for instance, and they must disclose their funding sources at regular intervals. Human rights organizations are most affected, but also NGOs which campaign on behalf of the environment or health care issues.

104. Various commentators on the introduction of these laws, which allow for funding audits and authorise police raids, argue that they unfairly discredit foreign-funded and even partially foreign-funded NGOs in the public domain.
Anti-Putin protests
105. On 6 May 2012, there was a large-scale protest against Vladimir Putin’s re-election to the presidency in Volotnya (or Bolotnaya) Square in Moscow. The demonstration, initially peaceful, descended into chaos and violence, evidently perpetrated by members of the public as well as by riot police:
Protesters clashed with riot police in Moscow on Sunday in the most violent demonstration yet against Vladimir Putin's rule, on the eve of his return to the presidency.
At least six protesters and three police officers needed hospital treatment, and dozens more were slightly injured. Protesters pelted officers with beer bottles and rocks. Riot police responded with an overwhelming use of force, beating the crowd with batons and dragging people into waiting arrest vans, sometimes by the hair.
More than 250 people were detained, including some of the protest movement's main leaders – the anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny, the leftist activist Sergei Udaltsov, and the former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov.
Prosecutors said they would investigate whether the men had provoked the violence at the protest, a charge that carries up to 10 years in prison.
The protest began peacefully as more than 20,000 Russians took to the streets in Moscow in a planned "March of Millions" designed to express anger at Putin's inauguration on Monday. Shouts of "Putin is a thief" were heard through the streets. Many people came from other cities in Russia, where the protest movement is less strong.
They marched towards Bolotnaya Square, one of Moscow's main protest sites. As the square began to fill, riot police four rows deep blocked their path, causing anger among protesters who shouted "This is our city" and "Police, be with the people, not with the freaks" …
Police blocked off the city centre and shut metro stations, and military vehicles were stationed around the Kremlin and along the river banks. At the same time, protesters at Bolotnaya began marching towards the Kremlin, while riot police moved in to block them.
Demonstrators, some carrying anarchist flags and wearing balaclavas, threw flares, and glass and plastic bottles at a phalanx of riot police clad in black helmets and fatigues. Protesters, including pensioners and disabled people, moved forward and shouted at police with cries of "For shame".
Riot police rushed the crowd and flung protesters to the ground before dragging them away. At least two men had bloodied heads after being beaten by baton-wielding officers. Police also fired pepper spray into the crowd. Protesters grabbed officers' headgear, dubbed "cosmonaut helmets" because of their shape, and tossed them into the river or hung them from trees as trophies. One man stood in the middle of the tussle and shouted: "Tomorrow, our state journalists will tell us how correctly the police behaved." Two officers moved in and carted him away ...
It was the largest clash between riot police and protesters since Putin's [first] presidential win in 1999. Security has been boosted around the capital in preparation for his inauguration, which will usher in his third term as president after his four years as prime minister ...
Smaller protests were held throughout Russia on Sunday, but many were dispersed by police, who also detained some participants ...
Protesters have vowed to keep up the pressure on Putin, who has failed to seriously address the challenge to his rule that emerged after disputed parliamentary elections in December. He has continued to anger many by teasing the protest movement, referring to their symbol, a white ribbon, as a condom.
Many protesters tried to argue with riot police to get them to switch sides …
One person was reported to have died on Sunday. A photographer fell from a sixth floor fire exit while filming the protest.[16]
[16] “Vladimir Putin's return to presidency preceded by violent protests in Moscow,” The Guardian, 7 May 2012,

106. Additional detail regarding how this event became violent appears in the following report:
Thousands of political protesters turned out in Moscow on Sunday, the day before Vladimir Putin’s presidential inauguration, and were met with a menacing and violent police response.
The authorities showed that they were in a far less tolerant mood than they had been during anti-government demonstrations over the winter, as squads of police officers in riot gear made repeated forays into the taunting and defiant crowd, striking out with nightsticks and detaining more than 450 people. But the protest also indicated that despite Putin’s election victory in March, the opposition hasn’t petered out and isn’t going away ...
Plastic bottles, chunks of asphalt and red highway flares rained down on police officers after they confronted angry young members of the Left Front, who tried to break away from the main crowd and march on the Kremlin. Police later said 27 people were injured, including seven demonstrators. A photographer who fell from a roof died.
During the winter, the protests — triggered by allegations of election fraud — had been almost entirely law-abiding and of good cheer. But at Sunday’s march, the frustration — over the prospect of Putin’s beckoning six-year term — spilled out. And the police were ready with a more aggressive response. Later, investigators said they were opening criminal cases against some of the protest organizers ...
The permit for Sunday’s two-mile march allowed only 5,000 participants, but an estimated 20,000 or more showed up ... [17]
[17] “In Moscow, peaceful protest turns violent,” The Washington Post, 6 May 2012,

107. I note that a fifth anniversary commemoration of the original 2012 anti-Putin demonstration was held in Moscow with permission and no significant, let alone violent, interference from the authorities:
MOSCOW -- Thousands of Russian opposition activists held a rally in Moscow on May 6 to mark five years since the 2012 Bolotnaya Square antigovernment protest in Moscow.
Moscow authorities approved the rally on a section of Sakharov Avenue in the city center. But city authorities refused to allow an opposition march toward Bolotnaya Square itself.
Alec Luhn, a correspondent for The Guardian, tweeted that at least seven protesters were detained at Bolotnaya Square on May 6 after they held up placards with photographs of people who were jailed for taking part in the 2012 protest.
The latest May 6 protest in Moscow was named by the organizers: For Russia, Against Arbitrary Practices And Reprisals.
Participants chanted slogans like "Russia without Putin!" and "Putin is a thief!"
Organizers claimed as many as 10,000 protesters took to the streets for the anti-Putin rally. Independent observers estimated that about 3,000 people took part.
According to Russia's Interior Ministry, about 1,000 people attended the rally, with participants listening to speeches and music.
"The police and Russian National Guard are ensuring public order and security," the ministry said.
Sakharov Avenue was closed for traffic, while those entering the rally area had to walk through metal detectors.
Meanwhile, the start of the demonstration was briefly delayed when municipal authorities and police tore down banners from a stage that had been set up for rally speakers.
Those banners contained slogans like "'The Case Of May 6," "Shame On Russia," and "Enough With Kadyrov, Enough Despotism" -- referring to Ramzan Kadyrov, the pro-Putin head of Russia's Chechnya region.
Russian journalist Aleksandr Ryklin, a moderator of the rally, said municipal officials alleged that the banners were "subversive" and tore them down "because they believe that they contradict the purpose of our rally."
Meanwhile, demonstrators carried Russian flags, posters, and other banners.
Many participants wore badges and ribbons reading: "Five Years Since The Bolotnaya."
An 81-year-old rally participant named Alla told RFE/RL that she is "worried sick" about the things happening in Russia since Putin came into power.
"I became anxious since the very beginning when Mr. Putin came to power and the first thing he did was to shut down [independent] NTV," Alla said. "It was very scary. Then I remember [the sinking of] the Kursk submarine. Then I remember Beslan [school siege]. I remember everything. I am doing everything [I can] to have this government changed."
Another protester, who identified herself as Tatyana, told RFE/RL that the longer Russians accept living in an "isolated country, the harder our life will be in the future."
Once the demonstration was under way, Russian opposition activist and former State Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov told the crowd that Russia has become "internationally isolated" because of Putin's policies.
"The country is in a deep economic and -- actually -- systemic crisis," Gudkov said. "The system of our governance is good for nothing. The country is getting involved in ever new armed conflicts. We lost 42 million [people] during World War II. Do we want to risk our lives, the lives of our family members and loved ones, the future of our children again?"
Russian Yabloko Party leader Sergei Mitrokhin said "the main danger for Russia today is a weak, cowardly, and dangerous government."
On May 6, 2012, several thousand Russians demonstrated on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow against Putin's reelection, and there were clashes with police during the event.
Between 400 and 700 people were detained. Dozens have been prosecuted and many have spent time in pretrial detention or been sentenced to prison. Some remain behind bars.
Fearing persecution, several other people, who had not yet been officially accused, left Russia and were granted asylum in Spain, Sweden, Lithuania, Estonia, and Germany.
Participants in the 2012 protest blame police for the violence and say that the severity of the charges laid against demonstrators has been grossly disproportionate to their actions.
The reaction of Russian authorities after the 2012 demonstration also included a crackdown against the country's opposition leaders.
Nikolai Kavkazsky, an opposition activist who was jailed after the 2012 Bolotnaya Square protest and only recently was released, told the Moscow rally on May 6 that "Kadyrov has been de facto waging genocide in Chechnya."
"Should we allow this to happen, it will begin in other [Russian] regions as well, because Chechnya is a certain testing ground of totalitarianism," Kavkazsky said. "Russia may be transformed into one big Chechnya in the future. I believe we must resist. We must help political prisoners. We need to stand up against all sorts of repression."[18]
[18] “Moscow Protest Marks Five Years Since Bolotnaya Crackdown,” Radio free Europe/Radio Liberty, 6 May 2017, in relation to s.36(2)(a) of the Act
The applicant mother
108. I accept that the applicant mother is a Russian national.
109. I have considered all of the reporting from mental health professionals in this matter. Having considered all of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the applicant mother, though occasionally digressive, was able to give meaningful evidence at the hearings before me. Whereas various mental health professionals refer to the applicant mother having reported that her mental state arises in relation to past persecution in Russia, such as being hit by her ex-husband, and from anxiety regarding persecution there in the future, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the situation is so simplistic. The applicant mother clearly claims that she suffered quite drawn-out traumatic circumstances in [Country 3] that are entirely independent of her claims in relation to Russia. She also claims that she is anxious about having to abandon her life in [Australian city 1] where she has her daughter doing well at school and where she herself is studying towards vocational qualifications. She claims she is anxious about the detriment she and her daughter would suffer if her daughter were uprooted from her school here and if her own studies and the career for which they prepare were to end due to being required to leave Australia. Overall, I give little weight to the position that the psychological conditions described in the mental health reports about the applicant mother corroborate the well-foundedness of her claimed fear of persecution there.
110. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant mother identifies genuinely as a Jew, even though she took the name [Ms A] some years ago. That is not to say that I think she adopted the name disingenuously; I merely observe that, whatever her past interest might have been, the applicant mother has not committed to Judaism. In reaching this view, I give some weight to her having given evidence under an oath on the Bible. Whereas the applicant mother has resided in Russia for many years with the Jewish name “[Ms A]” I find she has not suffered discrimination let alone persecution for reasons of having adopted that name or the identity it implies. Whereas the applicant mother may be imputed in Russia to be Jewish, and notwithstanding historic mistreatment of Jews in that country, I give more weight to independent reporting of a decrease in anti-Semitism in Russia and the reported lack of anti-Semitic violence there in recent years. Overall, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant mother faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future either separately or cumulatively for reasons of actual or imputed Jewish identification or identity.
111. I accept that the applicant mother is anti-Putin and sides with his opposition. I accept that this is in part due to her opposition to the legislation banning “LGBTI propaganda” in Russia.

112. Although her evidence is somewhat problematic, for being vague, somewhat contradictory and much-delayed over the course of her application to date, I accept that the applicant mother attended the Volotnaya Square protest on 6 May 2012, encountered the riot police, suffered from a pepper spray deployment and saw the police stop and remove other demonstrators. I can understand that the intensity of this event and its repressive outcome have put fear into the applicant mother and caused her to be reluctant to participate publicly in manifestations of opposition to the Putin regime. However, giving more weight to other evident factors, I find that her fear is not well founded. I give more weight in this case to the applicant mother’s freedom of movement in and out of Russia on a number of occasions since the Volotnaya Square episode because it shows that Russian authorities have no interest in the applicant mother with regard to her political activities during or before or after that event. I also give more weight to the fact that the authorities in Russia, taking precautions to prevent the possible use of manufactured or improvised weapons, permitted and evidently did not significantly interfere with the commemoration on 6 May 2017 of the original Volotnaya Square crackdown. Although public and, in particular, group dissent is substantially curbed and regulated in Russia, and notwithstanding the state’s notorious use of assassins, social media manipulation and other forms of subterfuge to punish potentially influential opponents, I am satisfied that the applicant mother is able to continue to express her political opinion and solidarity with other opponents of Putin’s power in Russia without facing a real chance of serious or significant harm.
113. Overall, I am not satisfied that the applicant mother faces a real chance of persecution in Russia for separate or cumulative reasons of political opinion, actual or imputed.
114. I accept that the applicant mother has had relationships with other women, and that there may have been a sexual aspect to these relationships. Although the applicant mother’s evidence regarding her claimed sexual orientation is somewhat confused and problematic, I am prepared to accept that it is not an easy subject for her discuss, or even to analyse, the better perhaps to discuss. On balance, I am prepared to accept that she genuinely identifies as bisexual, notwithstanding that her main relationships, the ones that arguably involved for her the most emotional investment and upheaval, were heterosexual.
115. I accept that the applicant mother is divorced from the applicant daughter’s father who lives in Ivanovo in Russia. I accept that there was acrimony between the applicant mother and her first former husband, during the marriage and for a few years afterwards. I am prepared to accept that the applicant mother’s former husband in Russia was aware of her relationships with women. I am prepared to accept that he did try to shield the applicant daughter from being exposed to and influenced by her sexual orientation. I accept that there was an argument between the applicant mother and her ex-husband in 2010 that involved his hitting her, and that this led to a report to the police, though with unsatisfactory results for the applicant mother. I accept that the applicant mother’s ex-husband was occasionally violent in their post-divorce arguments between 2008 and 2010 as claimed. I give more weight, in this matter, however, to the fact that according to the applicant mother, this trend ended in 2010, years before she left Russia for [Country 3] and years before she sought, with no evident resistance, to have the applicant daughter join her there. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a real chance of such violence recurring in the reasonably foreseeable future. I find that the ex-husband’s consent allowing the applicant daughter to leave Russia to reside with the applicant mother in [Country 3] is strong evidence of the acrimony and power struggle, as it were, between the applicant mother and her ex-husband having significantly abated. I do not accept on the evidence before me that the applicant mother’s ex-husband spread or spreads rumours about her sexual orientation to harm both her and his daughter. In particular, the applicant mother gave inconsistent and ultimately unsatisfactory evidence about her husband, on the one hand, spreading negative rumours about her and, on the other, not doing so in exchange for money. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant mother was forced to pay “hush money”, as it were, to her ex-husband to avoid being harassed in relation to her sexual orientation.
116. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the ex-husband could or would have had anything to do with the alleged attacks on the applicant mother and her sister in 2014, notwithstanding that the assailants are said to have used homophobic slurs in the alleged attacks.
117. As noted, on the evidence before me, I find that acrimony on the part of the applicant mother’s ex-husband had already receded significantly into the past by the time, in 2012, he signed the declaration of consent to allow the applicant daughter to leave Russia and reside permanently in her care in [Country 3]. I do not accept that the applicant daughter’s father remains remotely as antagonistic towards the applicants as has been suggested in the evidence in these two cases. On review of the evidence, I find that the applicant mother has been evasive and consistent in her claims about lack of contact with her ex-husband, particularly with regard to whether he knows where she and her daughter now reside and whether there has been any contact with him since they came here. Overall, I find on the somewhat inconsistent evidence before me, that the applicants have exaggerated the extent to which the applicant mother’s ex-husband, the applicant daughter’s father, would be an agent of harm towards either of them in the reasonably foreseeable future. As already noted, I do not accept, in particular, the suggestions in the applicant mother’s evidence that her ex-husband encouraged people to attack her or her sister. I give weight to the evidence to the effect that the applicant daughter made contact with her father after coming to Australia, to assure him she was safe and well so that he would not worry about her too much.
118. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant mother faces a real chance of serious harm directly or indirectly perpetrated by or at the behest of her ex-husband in Russia for any reason, Convention-related or otherwise, in the reasonably foreseeable future. It follows that the question of denial of state protection from such harm in the reasonably foreseeable future, whether for a Convention-related reason or not, is moot.
119. The applicant mother’s claims about having left behind a “bad reputation”, as it were, in Ivanovo, and faced insults and verbal intimidation from locals there, are claims about a place where she ceased to reside even while she remained a resident of Russia. For this reason, I give them little weight. I also find that the harm described, being verbal taunting, does not amount to persecution or even contribute cumulatively to such. I do not accept on the evidence before me that the applicant mother was ever attacked, let alone for reasons of her sexual orientation, in Moscow, such as on 4 March 2014. This is a new claim that she did not raise in her original protection visa application, but that is not the only reason why I find it to be untrue. I also do not accept it because, although she claims she was attacked on 4 March 2014, some time before her sister was raped, she obtained an Australian visa on 20 March 2014 (see the applicants’ Immigration Department file at f.94) with the subjective intention, as she has claimed, of coming here just for a holiday, but did not use it to leave Russia until after the alleged rape of her sister. There was thus a period between her own purported victimisation and her departure when she had the means of leaving Russia with the applicant daughter, for their own safety, and did not do so, waiting instead in the expectation, as she put it of coming here at some stage for a “[temporary] trip”.
120. I am not satisfied that the applicant mother has well founded fear of being raped in Russia, as suggested in her earliest claims to the Department. I find the claim baldly speculative.
121. The law in Russia allows the applicant mother to engage in consensual sexual relations with other adult women. She has not been persecuted by the state for any such relations. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a real chance of her being persecuted by the Russian authorities for reasons of her bisexuality or for reasons of imputed lesbianism in the reasonably foreseeable future. Whereas she has been harassed and intimidated by non-state agents, such as the mothers of children at her daughter’s school and the women in the park in 2014, I find on her evidence that these are isolated instances that she could avoid by not returning from Moscow to Ivanovo where, she claims, she no longer has any connections or obligations. Whereas she claims to have been harassed and assaulted by male strangers in Moscow for reasons of her sexual orientation, I have already found, for reasons given, that I do not believe these episodes occurred. In the alternative, I find that the claimed attack on 4 March 2014 in Moscow was, on the applicant mother’s description, an isolated episode and not systemic, and not indicative of a real chance of Convention-related persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future.
122. As to the claim about not being allowed to express her bisexuality through her attire or the wearing of motifs in solidarity with LGBT community, I do not accept that the applicant mother was discriminated against in this regard by her employer. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied she has any subjective desire, or notion as to how, to express her sexual orientation through her attire. On her evidence, wherever she is, the applicant mother willingly dresses to suit the weather, the occasion and broad, received social expectations. As to the question of being permitted to wear motifs such as small ribbon loops in solidarity with LGBT equality and other concerns, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me, including evidence of having attended and having waved small rainbow flags at [an LGBTI event] and other events, that the applicant mother is genuinely interested in displaying pro-LGBT motifs on her person or that fear of persecution is her reason for not doing so in Russia.
123. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant mother faces a real chance of persecution in Russia for reasons of her sexual orientation.
124. I accept that the applicant mother has raised her daughter to be tolerant and embracing of people irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and exposed her daughter to a philosophy of inclusiveness, understanding and compassion with regard to LGBT people. I find that she has done this in defiance of relevant Russian law and I accept that she genuinely believes that the relevant law is repressive, opportunistic and harmful. Whereas the applicant mother fears that just being a bisexual mother who has a daughter who is still a minor is sufficient to attract persecution from the authorities, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the relevant law is used by the authorities to persecute gays, lesbians and bisexuals who have teenaged children. Whilst illustrating how the law can be brought down against people trying to campaign for reform, celebrate LGBT in public events or, say, allowing libraries or schools to carry or use books that discuss or describe issues or stories of interest to or sympathetic with LGBT persons, the independent country information before me does not support the suggestion that the authorities are interested in the applicant mother’s potential to influence her child. Notwithstanding that Russian authorities detained three men returning from a gay pride event in [Country 3], I am not satisfied that the authorities have any such interest in the applicant mother. I do accept that she has faced unkind language and other discrimination in the past from some non-state agents, such as her ex-husband and the parents of her daughter’s classmates in Ivanovo, but I am not satisfied that she faces any further harm from her ex-husband. In addition, I do not accept that the discrimination and ostracism she has faced from other parents and the like amounted to persecution. Also I find that she could avoid such treatment by avoiding visits to Ivanovo where, as I have noted, she has no further contacts or obligations. On the evidence overall, I am not satisfied that the applicant mother faces a real chance of prosecution or persecution in Russia for having ignored the anti-LGBT propaganda law in the course of educating and socialising her daughter.
125. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant mother faces a real chance of indirect persecution as a result of attitudes towards her daughter identifying as Jewish. (See my discussion about this issue in my findings on the applicant daughter’s claims, below.)
126. I give no weight in this matter to the account of the applicant mother’s daughter having been made, by police as she put it, to sign a document at age nine or ten. There was no claimed outcome to this episode. Although the claim appears to have been raised to provide an example of heavy-handedness on the part of Russian authorities and of their suspicions regarding the applicant mother, I am not satisfied it is indicative, separately or cumulatively, of a real chance of the applicants being persecuted in Russia.
127. I am not satisfied that the applicant mother was unaware of her ability and right to claim asylum for herself and her daughter in [Country 3]. Accordingly I am not satisfied that, while she lived in [Country 3], she felt genuine subjective fear of persecution in Russia. I appreciate that, for some time, the applicant mother would have been distracted in [Country 3] just trying to find a safe place for her daughter and herself to sleep at night, but I am not satisfied that she was ultimately prevented by circumstances beyond her control from exploring the asylum options in [Country 3]. I am similarly not satisfied with the applicant mother’s explanation as to why she did not seek asylum for herself and her daughter in [Country 1] while she was there. I give some weight in my overall decision in these matters to the applicant mother’s evident lack of interest in seeking asylum in any of the Schengen countries and other Convention signatory states in the past.
128. I note that the applicant mother has been involved in social issues in Australia as a carer, [volunteer] and participant in [an Australian city 1 LGBTI event]. I find that there is, at least in part, a genuine motivation for all of these activities. Hence she is not caught by s.91R(3) of the Migration Act as stood at the time of her application. However, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that she faces a real chance of persecution in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future either separately or cumulatively due to her having engaged in such activities here. Overall, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant mother faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future for separate or cumulative reasons of having attended LGBT events and related activities in [other countries], Australia or anywhere outside of Russia.
129. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicants face a real chance of persecution separately or cumulatively for reasons of having sought asylum in Australia.
130. Having considered all of the evidence in this matter in its entirety, I am not satisfied that the applicant mother faces a real chance of persecution in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future for any Convention-related reason, separately or cumulatively.
131. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicant mother is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant mother does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
The applicant daughter
132. As in the case of the applicant mother, I have considered all of the reporting from mental health professionals in relation to the applicant daughter. As noted, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the applicant daughter, in spite of diagnosed anxiety, has been able to give meaningful evidence during the hearings before me.
133. I note that various mental health professionals refer to the applicant daughter having reported that her mental state arises in relation to past persecution in Russia and from anxiety regarding persecution there in the future. Some of the material from [a welfare organisation] (AAT file 1604053 at f.271) appears to misreport that the applicant daughter’s family is Jewish. I assume this is an error on the part of the clinical psychiatrist rather than a misleading claim by the applicant daughter. Having considered the mental health reporting, and noting the arguably uncritical acceptance by mental health professionals as to the cause of the applicant daughter’s anxiety and PTSD, I find that the applicant daughter herself has indicated to me that there are other significant factors behind her mental state, such as the effects of past arguments between her parents, the ugly domestic situation she witnessed in [Country 3], the period when she and her mother were homeless in that country, her concerns about domestic and academic stability in [Australian city 1], her being able to maintain the friendships she has built at school here and whether or not she will ever be permitted to pursue her current ambitions. In summary, I find that there are a lot more potential factors affecting the applicant daughter’s mental health than those identified in the mental health reporting. On the evidence overall, I give little weight to the position that the psychological conditions described in the mental health reporting relating to the applicant daughter corroborate well founded fear of persecution in Russia. This is partly because I find that several past circumstances do not give rise to a real chance of the applicant daughter being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future.
134. I accept that the applicant daughter is a Russian national. I accept that the applicant daughter genuinely identifies as a Jew. I also accept that the applicant daughter may, by now, be considered by Jewish institutions to be herself Jewish. Arguments abound as to whether Jewishness, as it were, is merely a “religion” and/or, more than that, an ethnic (and therefore “particular social”) group or “race”, and/or involves notions of “nationality” and “political opinion”. Irrespective of whether the applicant daughter sees herself as fitting into just one or more of these categories, I accept that she would be imputed in Russian society to be Jewish and therefore part of a socio-political minority, and that Jews have at least in past centuries been the subjects of discrimination and worse in Russia. I also accept that she was and felt bullied at school in Ivanovo in Russia. I do not accept that the applicant daughter’s father had any role in the bullying of the applicant daughter for reasons of her Jewish identity or for reasons of her mother being bisexual. On the evidence before me, I give some weight in this matter to the fact that the bullying the applicant suffered was located to the particular state school she attended in Ivanovo; to the fact that the applicant daughter is on the threshold of adulthood in she will logically be significantly less exposed to the kind of peer pressure that can easily be manifested in a classroom; to the fact that the Jewish community in Ivanovo has in the years since 2012 begun to experience something of a local government-sponsored renaissance with the establishment of a Jewish community centre and new synagogue in Ivanovo; to the fact that there are Jewish schools in places like Moscow where the applicant could finish her high school years if they are not already complete in the event of her returning, or being removed, to Russia; and to the independent evidence of legal recognition of Judaism as one of four “traditional” religions in Russia. I find that the applicant daughter is free to worship as a Jew in Russia and to engage in related studies, traditions and activities. Having considered all of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant daughter faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future for the separate or cumulative reason of Jewish identity.

135. As noted, the applicant daughter has “membership” of a family, which is a “particular social group” that includes her bisexual mother, bisexuals themselves being members of a “particular social group” in view of their cognisable sexual orientation. However, viewing her claims through this prism, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance of the applicant daughter being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future.
136. I accept that the applicant daughter, for her own part, supports tolerance towards LGBT persons. I also accept that tolerance of minority sexual orientations is a “political opinion”, for the law in Russia has effectively made it so by referring to expressions of such tolerance as “propaganda”. The applicant daughter’s tolerance of LGBT persons is clearly manifested in her attitude towards her mother and in what I consider to be her genuine support at LGBT-themed cultural events in Western Europe and Australia. Overall, I find that the applicant daughter is a supporter but not an activist or leader in the matter of LGBT and other human rights. I give some weight to the fact that, without prejudice, she willingly goes along with her mother, who occasionally attends LGBT cultural and socio-political events when and where they occur. Since it is highly unlikely that the LGBT community would be able to stage such events in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future, the applicant will be deprived of opportunities to demonstrate publicly her support for LGBT persons in that country; however I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that this situation would amount to the applicant daughter being persecuted. Looking at the kinds of activities in which the applicant daughter has been involved through her school and her social circles here, I consider it mere bald speculation that she would publicly engage in human rights activism in Russia but for the fear of being persecuted. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant daughter will, or will need to, modify her behaviour to avoid persecution in Russia.[19]
[19] Appellant S395/2002 v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Appellant S396/2002 v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [2003] HCA 71, Australia: High Court, 9 December 2003,
137. Whereas the applicant daughter has attended and participated in demonstrations of solidarity with LGBT causes in Australia, I am satisfied that she did this out of genuine commitment to social inclusion and reform. However, on the evidence overall, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant daughter faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future for separate or cumulative reasons of having attended LGBT events in [other countries], Australia or anywhere outside of Russia.
138. I accept that the applicant daughter has a highly developed sense of justice and a genuine interest in the protection and advancement of human rights. It is thus easy to find that she does not agree with many of the policies and practices of the Putin regime in Russia and would, when old enough, vote with one or other Opposition party. I am prepared to accept that she would be genuinely inclined to manifest her opposition to the Putin regime by joining demonstrations in Russia, such as are demonstrably permitted by the authorities albeit under somewhat overly-regulated conditions about numbers and march routes, and even by involving herself with local and foreign-sourced NGOs, etc.
139. Whereas new laws in Russia unfairly discredit foreign-funded and even partially foreign-funded NGOs in the public domain as “foreign agents”, and whereas such laws are arguably harsh and discriminatory, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that their implementation would give rise to a real chance that the applicant, in the event of joining an NGO in Russia, would be persecuted.
140. Having considered all of the relevant evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant daughter faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons of her political opinions, even if publicly manifested. I am not satisfied that she would have to alter her behaviour in publicly supporting human rights and opposing the Putin regime in order to avoid being persecuted.[20]
[20] Appellant S395/2002 v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Appellant S396/2002 v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, [2003] HCA 71, Australia: High Court, 9 December 2003,
141. As discussed earlier, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the applicant daughter faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia for reasons of having sought asylum in Australia.
142. I am not satisfied on the inconsistent evidence before me that the applicant daughter faces a real chance of being persecuted by her father for any reason. Thus, the question of whether there is a real chance of a Convention-related failure of state protection from familial or domestic harm is a moot one in this case.
143. I am not satisfied that the applicant daughter faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons of, or in connection with, her having been required to sign the document she said she was forced to sign at age nine or ten.
144. The fear on the part of both applicants about the applicant daughter being raped in the event of return to Russia is based on bald speculation, notwithstanding the evidence about the applicant mother’s sister having been raped in Moscow in April 2014. Whereas the applicant mother claims that he ex-husband’s brother is a pimp and whereas she claims she does not want her daughter exposed to such a person or his lifestyle, she still left her daughter with her ex-husband for several years in circumstances where she claims there was never any custody battle. She could have taken her daughter away from her husband were she genuinely worried about his brother’s influence, but instead she worked for [a company] that frequently took her out of Russia and left her in Ivanovo until after her move to [Country 3] when her husband let the daughter join her. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant daughter lived in circumstances that exposed her to a risk of rape and no evidence to suggest a real chance of her being assaulted or molested, let alone sexually, in the reasonably foreseeable future.
145. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant daughter faces a real chance of being persecuted in Russia in the reasonably foreseeable future for any Convention-related reason either separately or cumulatively.
146. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the applicant mother is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant mother does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Findings in relation to s.36(2)(aa) of the Act
147. Having concluded that the applicants do not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa), whereby a person who is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm.
148. Relevant to this, s.36(2)(aa) refers to a “real risk” of an applicant suffering significant harm. The “real risk” test imposes the same standard as the “real chance” test applicable to the assessment of “well-founded fear” in the Refugee Convention definition (ref. MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33).
149. “Significant harm” for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. “Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment”, “degrading treatment or punishment, and torture, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
150. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Essentially, according to s.5(1) of the Act, all three of these forms of “significant harm” require that there be an intention to inflict harm by some act or omission. Torture does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the ICCPR. “Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment” does not include an act or omission which is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), nor one arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the ICCPR. “Degrading treatment or punishment” does not include an act or omission which is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), nor one that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the ICCPR.
151. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
152. Essentially, the applicants’ complementary protection claims rely on the same facts as their refugee claims which have failed for not meeting the “real chance” test. In view of my findings of fact , above, those claims must also fail here.
153. Additional claims have been made in relation to the mental and psychological toll, on both applicants, of the applicant mother’s two unhappy marriages, the last one leaving both of them temporarily homeless in a foreign country, [Country 3]. Associated with these claims are social and professional recommendations to the effect that both applicants would benefit psychologically and emotionally, and that Australia would benefit socially and economically, from their being allowed to stay here. These claims do not involve significant harm as exhaustively defined in the Migration Act; they are, rather, humanitarian claims that are outside of the powers of the Tribunal to determine.
154. Having considered all of the evidence before me in its entirety, I am not satisfied that I have substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of either of the applicants being removed from Australia to Russia, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.
155. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that either of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
Other findings
156. There is no suggestion that either applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, they do not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
157. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Luke Hardy
Member

ATTACHMENT A
RELEVANT LAW
158. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
159. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugee Convention, or the Convention).
160. Australia is a party to the Refugee Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

161. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
162. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

[2018] AATA 4643

15 October 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction