1716586 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse the applicant, a national of Turkey, a Protection visa. The applicant's claims for protection were based on his Alevi religious identity, past persecution in Turkey, perceived political opinions as a leftist activist, and his fear of returning to Turkey after being coerced into becoming an informant. The delegate had refused the visa, finding the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which involves assessing whether Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. This required the Tribunal to consider the four key elements of the Convention definition: whether the applicant was outside his country, feared persecution, whether that persecution involved serious harm and systematic, discriminatory conduct, and whether the persecution was official, officially tolerated, or uncontrollable by the authorities, or if the government failed to protect him. The Tribunal also had to consider whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Turkey, whether he could obtain protection from Turkish authorities, or if the risk he faced was general to the population and not personal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his religion and perceived political opinion. It considered evidence of the general persecution of Alevis in Turkey and the applicant's specific experiences, including being coerced into becoming an informant, which placed him at risk. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's mental health issues, as evidenced by a clinical psychologist's report, and concluded that relocation within Turkey would not be reasonable given his circumstances and the risks he faced. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that state protection would be available to the applicant in Turkey.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies this criterion.