1718246 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 3882

1718246 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3882 (31 August 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1718246

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Turkey

MEMBER:Sheridan Lee

DATE:31 August 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 31 August at 3:38 pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Turkey – religion and political opinion – membership and activity in banned religious/political organisation in Turkey and Australia – some claims based on sexuality, religion and ethnicity falsified, exaggerated or discontinued – country information – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 36(2)(a), 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. 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).

2. The applicant is a [Age]-year-old male from Turkey. He applied for the visa on 14 August 2014 on the basis that he would be persecuted in Turkey due to his sexuality and because he is agnostic. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 25 July 2017, finding that the applicant provided insufficient detail and evidence to substantiate his claims.

3. The Tribunal viewed a copy of the applicant’s Turkish passport and I accept that the applicant is a citizen of Turkey and will assess his claims against Turkey as the country of reference for the purposes of s.5H(1)(a) and receiving country for Complementary Protection purposes.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 July 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s friends, [Mr A] and [Mr B]. [Mr B] provided his evidence over the telephone. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Turkish and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. 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.

7. 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 Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

8. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and 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.

9. 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’).

10. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, I have taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments 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.

    CLAIMS FOR PROTECTION

11. [The applicant] was born in Turkey, where he lived until he first arrived in Australia [in] September 2013 as the holder of a [specified] visa. He then applied for a Protection (subclass 866) visa on 14 August 2014. The applicant’s parents, brother and [sisters] remain in Turkey.

12. The applicant speaks Turkish and some English. When asked if he identifies with a particular ethnicity at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant said he did not. The applicant self-identified as agnostic.

    Application for protection

13. The application for protection form outlined the following claims:

    ·The applicant’s brother and father tortured and imprisoned him because of his bisexuality and agnostic faith. He fears they will kill him if he returns to Turkey.

    ·His brother and father physically assaulted him, resulting in an injury on his face and head.

    ·The applicant’s father gave his diary to the police, which contained many banned expressions. He is afraid the police will take action.

    ·The authorities would not protect the applicant from harm.

    ·He cannot relocate within Turkey as he would be found.

14. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he completed the application for protection form himself with the assistance of Google translate.

15. The decision of the delegate, provided to the Tribunal by the applicant on review, outlines that the applicant attended an interview on 24 August 2016. At the interview the applicant provided some additional information about his claims:

    ·The applicant confirmed that he was agnostic and that he was not certain of the existence of God after reading a lot of literature on the topic. His family are Muslim.

    ·The applicant became aware of his bisexuality in October or November 2013 when he started dating a [Age]-year-old University student named [Mr C]. They dated for three or four months.

    ·In March or April 2013, individuals at the school where the applicant was teaching verbally abused and pushed him. He indicated that this occurred because his private opinions were revealed on that day. Comments that he made on [Social media 1 and 2] were made public.

    ·He stated that he was suspended from his workplace and taken home by his father and brother. He claimed that his father beat him very badly on the first day and then tortured him for a few days after that. He claimed that his father locked him in the cellar and he only managed to escape with the help of his mother.

    ·The applicant made a police complaint regarding how his father had treated him. However, the police harassed him verbally and physically, rather than assist him.

    ·He had been intimately involved with a man “who was a woman psychologically”. The applicant indicated that he had not been in any other relationships.

    ·The applicant claimed that his diary contained his religious, political and sexual views including comments regarding Abdullah Gul, who he labelled a puppet.

    ·When the applicant escaped his family home in Urfa, he stayed in a hostel in Istanbul until he travelled to Australia. His sister financially assisted him during this period.

    ·When asked whether he had participated in any LGBTI activities in Australia, the applicant stated that he did not have much time for this as he was very involved in his work. He indicated that he had been on some dates with men in Australia, including a [Country 1] man named [Mr D] two years prior and [a Country 2] backpacker approximately six months before the interview. He stated that he had been to gay bars [and] used [Dating app] however, he was not actively seeking a relationship or sexual encounter in Australia.

    ·When asked about the type of harm he feared upon returning to Turkey, the applicant stated that he feared an honour killing from the paternal side of his family due to his sexual and religious views. He also claimed that there were 11 court cases pending on his behalf in Turkey and that his sister had verbally advised him of this eight to twelve months after he arrived in Australia.

16. The applicant submitted further claims in writing on 29 August 2016. In summary, the applicant claimed that he had made a number of controversial statements on social media, in his diary and on his laptop which were made public in Turkey. He claimed to have referred to Muhammad as a thinker, rather than a prophet. He also indicated that he had criticised the Justice and Development Party [Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (AKP)] and insulted its members including Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul. He claimed that he had joined the Gezi protests in Istanbul and was arrested by the police, which put him at risk of being punished upon returning to Turkey. He also indicated that he was a member of “Aktif Egitim-Sen”, a teacher’s union in Turkey and that all members of this union have been fired by the Government and were under investigation.

17. The statement further claimed that the human rights of minority groups in Turkey are violated, including Kurds, Alevis and Armenians. The statement outlined that the applicant’s father is Kurdish. He does not speak the Kurdish language personally.

18. He claimed to have worked at a private school in Turkey from September 2006 until September 2007, called [School 1]. He stated that this school was a member of the Fethullah Gulen Movement and, as a result, is now closed. He claimed that he would be harmed in Turkey due to his association with this movement, as the Gulen Movement and the AKP have become enemies.

19. The applicant submitted a copy and translation of a letter purportedly from the Turkish [Official], to substantiate his claims. The English translation was provided by a NAATI accredited translator on 26 August 2016 of an original document in Turkish dated 13 March 2013. The translation outlines that the document is a letter from the [Official] and authorised by the Assistant Government on behalf of the Governor. The letter states that the applicant was suspended of teaching duties [in] March 2013 pending the outcome of an investigation into his actions for confusing children against ‘our sacred beliefs, for causing a perception of the lowering of national moral values, for presenting behaviour that aims to destroy general morality and family structure, for displaying behaviour that is contrary to the dignity of teaching [profession] inside and outside of school.’

20. The delegate accepted that the applicant’s father is Kurdish and the applicant is therefore of Kurdish decent. The delegate did not accept the applicant’s claim to be bisexual. The delegate did not accept that the applicant was a member of the Aktif Egitim-Sen teachers’ union, that he participated in the Gezi protests or that he worked at a school associated with the Gulen movement in Turkey. Further, the delegate did not accept that there were any ongoing or pending court cases involving the applicant. Overall, the delegate did not accept that the applicant was at risk of serious or significant harm if he returned to Turkey.

    Application for merits review

21. [The applicant] applied to the Tribunal for merits review of the delegate’s decision. On 12 December 2017, he requested that his matter be constituted to a female Tribunal Member on the basis that he would be uncomfortable giving evidence in relation to his sexuality to a male.

22. Nevertheless, in a statutory declaration, dated 14 May 2021, the applicant outlined that he provided incorrect claims for protection at the time he lodged his application because he feared for his life and felt that the Australian Government would not believe his account of the situation for members of the Gulen movement in Turkey. The statement went on to say:

    I was so fearful of being rejected that I felt I had to use someone else’s story to ensure my safety. I researched on the internet and read a story about something terrible that had happened to a Turkish bisexual man after he had had a relationship with transgender woman. I wrongly adopted this story and provided it to the Department as my own. I am deeply sorry for misleading the Department in this way, but I did so out of fear for my life and fear that I would have to return to Turkey.

23. The statement claimed that the applicant holds a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution on the basis that he does not adhere to the Islamic faith, or any other faith, and because he was heavily involved in the Gulen movement.

24. The applicant claimed that his first direct involvement with the Gulen movement occurred in 2000, when he attended a university preparation course operated by a Gulen education provider named [Mr E]. The applicant stayed in a boarding house run by the Gulen movement for the duration of the course.

25. In 2002, the applicant enrolled in a [Course] at [a] University. He secured a scholarship to stay at a boarding house operated by the Gulen movement during his university studies. The boarding house was called [Name] and it was located in [deleted].

26. The statement outlined the positive experiences of the applicant with the people from the Gulen movement. The movement aided with his education, provided guidance and housing. The applicant claimed to be from an underprivileged background.

27. While he was at University, the applicant volunteered as a tutor for the Gulen movement for three to four years. The statement outlined that the applicant had [students] who he tutored through the share house or at private residences:

    The first few years, I only tutored in [Subjects] but, the last year, I would tutor people in the Gulen movement itself. I would teach my students about the Gulen movement and provide commentary on its ideology and teachings. I also did some fundraising work for the Gulen movement, by offering courses to business owners who we would then seek funds from to support the Gulen movement’s work.

28. After University, the applicant alleged that he worked from 2006 to 2007 at [School 1] in [location], a [school] operated by the Gulen movement. He taught the general curriculum to grade [level] students. It was not a requirement for students to follow the Gulen movement.

29. The applicant sat the required exam to become a [teacher] and in 2007 he was sent to [District] in the Hakkari province to teach. He taught at the school until 2010. The applicant was required to undertake military service in 2008 and 2009, however his civil service as a [teacher] counted towards his military service and he was therefore not required to undertake full-time active duty. The applicant also volunteered at a Gulen run youth centre while living in Hakkari.

30. During the applicant’s time in Hakkari he spent time researching religion and came to consider himself agnostic.

31. In 2013, the applicant attended anti-government protests at Gezi Park in Istanbul. He felt that Erdogan (Recep Tayyip Erdogan, former Prime Minister and current President of Turkey) had imposed too many restrictions on the lives and freedoms of young people. The statement provided the following clarification to the applicant’s earlier evidence:

    I stated that I was arrested by police during the protests but this is not true. I attended the protests but I was never arrested. I said this in the hope that it would strengthen my claim, as I remain so worried that the Australian government is not going to believe me and I am really very fearful of returning to harm in Turkey. I know it was wrong to embellish my story and I am sorry for that, but it came from a place of fear about my future.

32. Also in 2013, the applicant outlined that he joined the Aktif Egitim-Sem Teachers’ Union, which is run by the Gulen movement. The applicant alleged that since the 2016 attempted-coup, every teacher who was a member of the Aktif Egitim-Sen Teachers’ Union has been fired and some have been imprisoned.

33. The applicant claimed to have held a bank account with [Bank]. On numerous occasions he transferred money to the Gulen movement from his bank account, including payments to [for] subscription payments. The applicant does not have any documentary evidence of the bank account and the bank has since been taken over by the Turkish Government.

34. The applicant’s statutory declaration goes on to outline that when he arrived in Australia, he stayed in a house run by the Gulen movement for around two years. During that time, he volunteered as a tutor. Most [Specified day] the applicant participates in [a meeting] at the Gulen association of Australia’s office in [Suburb 1], Melbourne. The group watches videos of Fethullah Gulen who delivers lectures about politics, philosophy and spirituality. The statement notes that since the applicant started university in 2019 he has not been able to attend every week and he has been unable to attend during the COVID-19 restrictions on movement.

35. In submissions dated 26 May 2021, the applicant’s representative outlined that ‘as a non-religious person, [the applicant] fears that he would be perceived to be anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic or a believer in a non-Muslim religious minority group. This is exacerbated by his heavy involvement in the Gulen movement.’ The submission highlight that approximately 98 per cent of the population in Turkey adhere to Islam and that religious freedom has been curbed significantly under the state of emergency imposed in Turkey in the aftermath of the failed 2016 coup.

36. In addition to evidence submitted to the Department, the applicant supplied the following documents in support of his claims:

    ·An Undergraduate Diploma issued by the Republic of Turkey Faculty of Education to [the applicant], having completed the four years of theoretical and practical studies and the examinations [in] June 2006.

    ·A record of military service issued by the Ministry of National Defence [in] September 2013 lists the applicant’s occupation as Teacher.

    ·A picture of the applicant standing outside a school with students in uniform. The sign on the school reads “[Wording of sign]”. There are further photos of the applicant inside the school with various groups of students in the same uniform.

    ·A letter from [Organisation], dated [October] 2014, to confirm that [the applicant] was a tenant at that date in accommodation leased by the [organisation] and made available to students.

    ·Letters of support from [Mr F] and [Mr A] who both attest to having met the applicant when he volunteered with the [Organisation] in Melbourne.

    ·A medico-legal neuropsychology assessment by [Dr F], dated 13 June 2021. [Dr F] is a qualified clinical neuropsychologist. The report found the applicant to be of average to high intellect with no cognitive impairments. [Mr F] expressed the opinion that the applicant displayed mild symptoms of anxiety and depression and found a major depressive disorder (mild episode) to be the appropriate diagnosis. He noted that ‘the severity is mild because he is still engaged with his environment adequately, continuing to work and study, despite some social withdrawal and occasional suicidal ideation’. [Dr F] noted that the applicant had the ability to settle and work in Turkey based on his cognitive skills, intellect and mental health. However, he noted that this would be impingent on the political situation in Turkey.

1. Finally, the submissions outline that the applicant fears harm as a member of the Turkish/Kurdish ethnic group because his Father is of Kurdish descent.

2. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant gave evidence that his parents, brother and [sisters] continue to live in Turkey. Prior to his departure from Turkey, the applicant was employed by the Turkish Government to [do a job task]. He is a qualified teacher and previously taught at the primary school level.

3. When asked why he was concerned about returning to Turkey, the applicant explained that he was fearful that we would be jailed as a supporter of the Gulan movement. He understood followers of the movement to be peaceful people who work to educate those who are underprivileged. The Gulen movement assisted the applicant with his education.

4. The applicant gave evidence that he attended a university preparation course run by the Gulen movement. He then stayed in accommodation provided by the movement while he studied, went on to teach at a Gulen-run school and volunteered at a Gulen community centre in [District]. When the applicant first arrived in Australia, he again stayed in accommodation run by the Gulen movement.

5. The applicant alleged that he was active in the union movement whilst working as a teacher. The union covered teachers in all schools, but most members were associated with the Gulen movement.

6. The applicant advised that he no longer wished to pursue his claim to fear harm on the basis of his Kurdish ancestry. He confirmed that his father was Kurdish and used to speak Kurdish, but now only speaks Turkish. Nevertheless, the applicant explained that he doesn’t fear any harm as a result.

7. The applicant confirmed that he did not experience any serious or significant harm while living in Turkey, but emphasised that the situation has significantly changed since he departed eight years ago. He further confirmed that he retracted his claims regarding his sexuality and ethnicity.

8. When questioned about his sexuality, the applicant became visibly uncomfortable. He gave evidence that he had been with a boy when he [age] but not since. He expressed a desire to settle down with a woman and explained that he was not fearful of experiencing harm as a result of his sexuality, although noted that there are issues around sexuality in Turkey. I provided the applicant with additional time to make submissions in respect of his sexuality.

9. The applicant’s friend, [Mr B], gave evidence that he attends gatherings with the applicant at the [Organisation] in [Suburb 1], Victoria. On [Specified days] evenings, the group gather to listen to [lectures]. Afterwards they have tea and chat. [Mr B] noted that the applicant attends less often now that he is studying at university.

10. [Mr B] confirmed that the applicant stayed in ‘[organisation] accommodation’ in 2013. At that time, [Mr B] worked [and] volunteered at the [organisation]. He explained that the [organisation] supports families and youth. They organise community [events]. The teachings are rooted in Islam, but it is not an official Islamic organisation.

11. [Mr A] gave evidence that he was employed at [workplace], [Suburb 2], to look after [job task]. He met the applicant when he volunteered as a mentor and resided in the [organisation] accommodation.

    Post-hearing submissions

12. In submissions dated 29 July 2021, the applicant’s representative outlined that the applicant is currently interested in staring a relationship with a woman in order to have children, but does not rule out the possibility of having a relationship with a person of a different gender in the future. The representative noted that sexuality is fluid.

13. The submissions again highlighted the situation for supporters of the Gulen movement in Turkey following the 2016 attempted coup and provided a number of papers on the topic.

14. A statement by [the applicant], dated 28 July 2021, was provided with the submissions. The statement reiterated the applicant’s oral evidence provided at the hearing.

    RISK OF HARM

15. I accept that the applicant was a qualified teacher in Turkey and that he was employed at a Gulenist school for a period of time. I further accept that the applicant has maintained a connection to the Gulen movement in [Australia]. I accept that the applicant follows the teachings of the Gulen movement but does not consider himself to be an adherent of Islam. I accept that the applicant’s father is of Kurdish descent, although the applicant does not fear harm on that basis. I further accept that the applicant’s sexuality is fluid, although he is not presently interested in pursuing a LGBTIQ+ relationship.

16. The Gulen movement started as a religious movement in Turkey during the 1960s through the sermons of Muslim cleric, Fethullah Gulen. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) describes Gulen as ‘a onetime radical Islamist preacher.’[1] Gulen has been in self-imposed exile in the US since 1999 after recordings of speeches where he called on his supporters to infiltrate state institutions and wait for the ‘moment of change’ were released.

    [1] DFAT Country Information Report Turkey, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 10 September 2020, p. 27

17. On 15 July 2016, elements of the Turkish military attempted a coup d’état against the Turkish Government. The coup failed as most of the military remained loyal to the Turkish Government and mass public protests against military intervention occurred.[2] The Turkish Government has since blamed Fethullah Gulen and his supporters for orchestrating the attempted coup. The Government claims the Gulen movement was running a parallel state within the civilian and military bureaucracy. However, Gulen publicly condemned the attempted coup and denied any involvement.[3] Shortly before the coup, in May 2016, the Turkish government formally declared the Gulen movement a terrorist organisation.

    [2] DFAT Country Information Report Turkey, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 10 September 2020, p. 8  

    [3] Turkey coup: What is Gulen movement and what does it want?, BBC, 21 July 2016  

18. Turkey declared a state of emergency following the coup that lasted until 2018. New anti-terror laws we introduced in 2018 which retained elements of the emergency decrees. The Government continued to crackdown on political opponents well after the end of the state of emergency using the existing and new anti-terrorism laws.[4] The crackdown has largely been targeted at members of the Gulen movement. Thousands of public servants suspected of being Gulenists were fired and affiliated institutions closed.[5] In 2020, Human Rights Watch reported that Turkish authorities had approximately 58,409 suspects on trial and 132,954 were under criminal investigation for links to the Gulen movement.[6] Only a very small minority of those arrested are accused of actually taking part in the events surrounding the attempted coup.

    [4] World Report 2021. Events of 2020, Human Rights Watch (HRW), 13 January 2021, pp. 666-673; 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Turkey, United States Department of State, p.1, 30 March 2021; Freedom in the World 2021 - Turkey, Freedom House, 03 March 2021; Weaponizing counter-terrorism, Julia Hall, Amnesty International, 21 June 2021.

    [5] ‘The Remarkable Scale of Turkey's "Global Purge"’, Foreign Affairs, 29 January 2018.

    [6] World Report 2021: Events of 2020,  Human Rights Watch (HRW), 13 January 2021.

19. The Gulen movement has a strong presence in Australia. In the 1980s, the first Hizmet community was established in Melbourne by Turkish migrants and has steadily grown to other areas of the country. In 2016, SBS reported that around 5,000 children attend 16 non-denominational schools across the country that follow Gulen’s principles. Once such school is Sirius College, which has six campuses across Melbourne.[7] In March 2017, a founder of a Gulenist school in Sydney, Amity College, reported that several dozen students had withdrawn from the school after Turkish diplomats urged parents to withdraw their children, warning that its qualifications would not be recognised in Turkey. This was effectively confirmed by a Turkish diplomat, who described Gulenist-based education as brainwashing.[8] Similarly, a Gulenist school in Shepparton closed when a number of parents withdrew their children from enrolment. A teacher at the school said parents were scared that they would be targeted on return to Turkey if their children attend a school associated with the Gulenist movement.[9]

    [7] ‘Turkey's 'most-wanted terrorist' and his well-connected friends in Australia’, SBS World News Australia, 20 July 2016.

    [8] ‘Turkish cleric Gülen’s Australian supporters fear reprisals’, Saturday Paper, 25 March 2017

    [9] ‘Campus Closes’, Shepparton News, 1 November 2017  

20. After consideration of current information regarding the political situation in Turkey, I find that the applicant is at risk of persecution on the basis of his involvement with the Gulen movement. In particular, I consider that the applicant would be easily identifiable as a Gulenist because of his employment at [School 1], a Gulenist school in Turkey which has since been closed, use of Gulen run accommodation facilities and work as a mentor both in Turkey and Australia. It is possible that this risk may be greater as a result of the applicant’s religious beliefs and Kurdish ancestry.

21. I do not accept that the applicant is at risk of serious or significant harm on the basis of his sexuality. I accept that sexuality is fluid and the possibility exists that the applicant may engage in a relationship with a person within the LGBTIQ+ community in the future. Nevertheless, that relationship is speculative and not likely in the foreseeable future, given the applicant’s focus on entering into a relationship with a woman.

22. It is disappointing that the applicant falsified claims and continued to put forward claims that he did not consider genuine as recently as the submissions of 26 May 2021, in which it was alleged that he feared harm as a member of the Turkish/Kurdish ethnic group because his Father is of Kurdish descent. Nevertheless, I consider that he has a well-founded fear of persecution due to his work with the Gulen movement.

23. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

    DECISION

24. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

    Sheridan Lee
    Member