1902416 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 5882

1902416 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5882 (7 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1902416

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Turkey

MEMBER:Paul Millar

DATE:7 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 07 June 2019 at 6:57pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Turkey – political activities – participation in protests – People’s Democratic Party (HDP) – family member’s association with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) – politically sensitive name – Alevi Kurd – Atheist – credibility concerns – inconsistent evidence – highly improbably account – ability to obtain passport after name change – departed country lawfully on passport – claimed adverse profile – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 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 dependant.

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 on 30 January 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  The applicant, who the Tribunal finds to be a citizen of Turkey, applied for the visa on 21 December 2018.[1]   The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 May 2019 to give evidence and present arguments on the issues arising in the review.  The hearing was conducted with the assistance of a Turkish speaking interpreter.  The applicant was represented in the review by his registered migration agent who attended the hearing.

   [1] The Tribunal’s finding on citizenship is based on a statement made by the delegate at page two of her decision that the applicant produced a Turkish passport in his current name.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

2. 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, he or she 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.

3. 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 because the person is a refugee.

4. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

5. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA.  

6. 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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B). 

   Mandatory considerations

7. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   FINDINGS

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the decision under review should be affirmed.  According to his evidence to the Department and the Tribunal, the applicant claims protection on the grounds that he is an atheist, Alevi and Kurd who undertook political activities in opposition to the Turkish government.[2]  The Tribunal holds concerns about the applicant’s credibility.  Before discussing them, it is necessary to first set out a summary of the applicant’s evidence to the Department and the Tribunal.

   The applicant’s evidence to the Department

   Evidence in written statement

   [2] The applicant’s evidence to the Department and the Tribunal comprises the contents of his protection visa application forms; his written statement; his evidence at his interview with the delegate and his evidence at the Tribunal hearing.

9. To the Department, the applicant submitted a written statement dated 9 January 2019.  In this statement, the applicant made the following claims.  For being Kurdish and an atheist who holds Alevi values, the applicant was ostracised.  Members of family were of adverse interest to Turkish authorities and this also caused the applicant difficulty.  In this respect, the applicant had an uncle who was a member of Dev Sol and was executed during military service.  Another uncle became ‘mentally deranged’ due to torture he received in military service.  Another uncle had to leave Turkey with his wife because of their political views.  A paternal uncle was pursued by Turkish police and escaped to [another country].  Police raided ‘the home’ and detained all male family members for one and a half months looking for that uncle.

10. In addition, the applicant had a cousin (‘cousin 1’) who had joined the PKK and was being pursued by the authorities in [City 1].[3]  The applicant’s mother helped him to leave that area.  Another cousin (‘cousin 2’) was a [Occupation 1]. In 2016, he and his friends were taken into custody following a raid by police on [Business 1] for which cousin 2 was working and which the authorities closed down.  In terms of immediate family, the applicant’s mother was a [Occupation 2] who had been politically active. When the applicant was small the authorities had tried to ‘exile’ her to a place in the east of Turkey where government intelligence services and related groups were dominant.  She was under pressure by [her superior] at the [workplace] in which she worked because of her activities and her membership of a union.

    [3] The PKK is the Kurdistan Workers Party.

11. While attending high school, other students would ostracise and oppress the applicant saying that he was a Kurd and not a Turk.  One ‘fascist’ student would beat the applicant with his friends.  Because of these problems, the applicant had to change schools.  In addition, while the applicant was young, his family had to move house many times due to their adverse family background.  Because of this, his brother could not attend university. Once the applicant finished high school, his family changed cities.  The applicant gained admission to a university in Antalya (‘city 1’) but his admission was late due to the difficulties mentioned.

12. In his first year at university, the applicant encountered harm from students with right wing views.  This was because of the applicant’s ‘political name’ [specified given name] (‘name 1’).  These students would ask him why he had that name and if he was a Kurd or a Turk.  The students would question, beat and stalk the applicant.  Many times they tore his clothes off him. This harassment caused the applicant to have to change rooms a number of times.  However, these students would lock the applicant into his room preventing him from going to class, exams and meals.  During Ramadan, those students with Sunni ideology asked the applicant why he was not going to prayers and fasting. Because of these problems, the applicant grouped together with other Kurdish students but the right wing students still harassed them.  At the same time, the applicant began to question religion and became an atheist.

13. Fights, arguments and violence escalated and, in April 2008, these right-wing students prevented the applicant and others in his group from entering the dormitory.  The students did this in collaboration with Turkish police.  Subsequently, people from outside the campus who belonged to right-wing parties attacked the applicant and his group. The police took a number of people into custody, including the applicant. The police made reference to the applicant’s name, name 1, causing the applicant to believe that they had information about him and his family and had him under surveillance.  The applicant was held in custody for two days, maltreated and then brought before a prosecutor.

14. The applicant was then released from custody but expelled from his dormitory. Police at the time said he should leave the university. However, the applicant continued his studies, renting premises with friends.  Even so, they were checked on by police and encountered harassment from others such as broken windows and threatening messages.  In this period the applicant attended university, from approximately 2008 until 2013, he and his friends protested about the rights of Kurds and to commemorate certain massacres by Turkish authorities.  On these occasions security officers would confront them.  In approximately June 2013, the applicant participated in a protest against the government related to Gezi Park.  Police arrested him at the protest and held him in custody for approximately [number] days.

15. Because of his activities and adverse record, the applicant was given low marks for his studies. Applications to undertake [qualification] and train as a [Occupation 2] were refused. A [potential employer] he approached for employment told him that the authorities had investigated and collected information about him. For that reason, the [potential employer] would not give him work.  The President of Turkey and the AKP kept files on all opponents, including him, preventing him from obtaining public-sector work and leaving him unemployed.[4]  He did work for [Business 2] from April 2014 until November 2014.  However, he was dismissed from that work because he was an atheist and Kurdish.  In 2014, the applicant participated in protests and activities on being called to do so by the leader of the HDP.[5] 

    [4] The AKP is the Justice and Development Party, the ruling conservative party.

    [5] The HDP is the People’s Democratic Party, a left wing Kurdish-aligned political party.

16. In 2015, the applicant applied for a [temporary] visa to enter [Country 1] because he saw that his situation was gradually getting worse.  His application was declined because he had not completed military service.  In June 2015, when general elections were being held, the applicant assisted the HDP by manning party stands.  He and others doing so were attacked by police and nationalist conservatives.  In August 2015, the applicant was conscripted and entered military service.  This was even though the applicant’s arm had been broken by police when detained in 2013.  His commander officer told him that they had reports about him and did not want trouble.  He was accompanied by an intelligence staff member because of his adverse record.

17. While performing military service, the applicant’s brother participated in an anti-government rally at a [location] during which he was injured and a member of an opposition party was killed.  For expressing sympathy for that person, an officer accused the applicant of supporting terrorists.  He was then transferred to a battle zone where he saw soldiers killed, most of them Kurds.  The applicant was made to perform manual tasks and spoken to adversely, ‘as a terrorist’.  He completed military service in February 2016.  In May 2016 he began work ‘[in Occupation 3]’.  In that position, he was spoken to badly by a person from the MHP.[6]  In August 2016 when the Turkish government commenced the ‘Shield of Euphrates’ operation in Syria the applicant participated in protests against that.  In October 2016, the applicant was retrenched and lost his work [in Occupation 3]. The AKP had an office at his workplace and their members retained employment while the applicant lost his.  The applicant applied for other work but was declined.  In his protection visa application form, the applicant stated that from February 2017 until May 2017 he worked in [Occupation 4].

    [6] The MHP is the Nationalist Movement Party, an ultra-nationalist political party.

18. In [2017], the applicant changed his name because of negativity developing around him, pressure put on his family because of him and operations related to the HDP.  The applicant changed his name so that neither he nor those around him would suffer because of him.    According to his protection visa application form, the applicant was issued with a Turkish passport [in] 2017 under his new name.  In his written statement, the applicant then stated that in July 2017, under his new name, he obtained work for a [specified] company (‘company 1’).  The applicant did not say any more about this in his written statement, but, in his protection visa application form, he said that he stopped working for company 1 in November 2017.  In his protection visa application form, the applicant said that from December 2017 he was unemployed because he was going through a difficult period psychologically and was being targeted by Turkish authorities.

19. In his written statement, the applicant then said that [in] January 2018 he took part in protests against the ‘Afrin operation’, his participation being to man stands and collect signatures to have that operation stopped.  Because of this, the applicant became ‘known’ and targeted, constantly checking if anyone was following him when he was walking in the street.  He received threatening messages and telephone calls from people he did not know.  He became worn out psychologically so he stopped living in city 1 and went to live with his mother in Izmir (‘city 2’).  From that time, ‘they’ started threatening his family again, the applicant referring to the [employer’s] administration wanting his mother to leave the union to which she belonged.  Police told her that if she did not do that she would be dismissed by executive order.  Occasionally, the applicant stayed with friends and looked for someone who could help him leave Turkey.  He met a woman who said that if he paid her a sum of money she could procure a visa for him.  

20. According to his protection visa application form, the applicant then left Turkey using his Turkish passport.  In his protection visa application form, the applicant broadly claimed that he did not feel safe in any place in which he lived in Turkey as, in each place, he was subjected to oppression and persecution and was a target of the groups he claims to fear.

    Submissions of 3 January 2019

21. By letter dated 3 January 2019, the representative made written submissions on behalf of the applicant.  The representative made the following assertions.  The applicant suffered harm in Turkey because he is an atheist, Kurdish and Alevi.  It was due to these factors, his political views and his views about Sunni Islam that he was unfairly dismissed from a number of positions of employment.  The applicant does not identify himself as a supporter of the PKK, but, members of his family have been associated with the group and became known to Turkish authorities.  A number of his family members and close relatives have been tortured, left Turkey and sought asylum in other countries. Others have been killed on the same grounds as the applicant seeks protection.  The applicant’s involvement in protests led by the HDP caused Turkish authorities to consider the applicant as being a PKK supporter and so he was subjected to persecution for being associated with that group.

22. The representative asserted that there was a search warrant in existence for cousin 2 and therefore a real chance that the applicant would be included in the same police investigation. The applicant was subjected to continuous threats because of his and his family’s adverse record and changed his name for those reasons.  With respect to the applicant’s name, it was submitted that name 1 is the name held by a [certain] anti-government leader and so name 1 always drew the attention of the authorities and ultranationalists to the applicant leading to him suffering beatings, torture and discrimination.  On one occasion, in detention, the authorities broke the applicant’s arm.  Although the applicant moved to other areas of Turkey for his safety, in all cities he lived he was persecuted.

    Interview with the delegate

23. The delegate interviewed the applicant with the assistance of a Turkish speaking interpreter on 4 January 2019, before the applicant submitted his written statement.  During the interview, the applicant displayed a tendency to give long answers to the delegate’s questions.  At the interpreter’s request, the delegate had to remind the applicant to break up his answers into short sentences so that the interpreter could properly translate them.  The interview with the delegate lasted for three hours and the applicant related an account that was broadly consistent with the evidence set out above from his written statement.  In terms of additional evidence, when asked about his religious views and whether he practised the Alevi faith, the applicant said that he and his family fasted in Moharram and he frequented an Alevi association. 

24. With respect to his cousins who had been of adverse interest to Turkish authorities, he referred to another cousin who had been in conflict with the authorities, disappeared and was absent.  He said that cousin 2 was now being looked for by the authorities.  Cousin 1 who had been in the PKK and who escaped from [City 1], was now in prison. 

25. With respect to name1, the applicant said that this was the name of an anti-government leader in Turkey.  He repeated his account of being troubled by other students because of that name and, in April 2008 when arrested, being asked by police if he was the famous ‘[name 1]’.  The delegate asked the applicant why, if he had been targeted because of that name, he did not cease to use it in [2017] when he adopted a new surname. In response, the applicant said that originally the name was ‘[name 1] [suffix 1]’ and he deleted ‘[suffix 1]’.  He said that his mother gave him the name ‘[name 1]’, he had a certain status that he thought that he could defend his thoughts and so he retained that name.  He adopted a new surname because he thought that if he chose any name that was ‘present within the family’ they would suffer.

1. With respect to the applicant’s attempt to obtain a visa to travel to [Country 1], the applicant said that when he worked for [Business 2] in 2014, although he did travel to other countries, he did not seek asylum at those times because he was not under as much pressure then.  It was when he got under his ‘latest pressure’ that he decided to leave Turkey.  When asked what that latest pressure was, the applicant said that he had participated in protests against the Afrin operation, saying that it began on [date].  When asked what happened to him on that day, the applicant said that he was collecting signatures and mentioned that academics and civil servants who gave their signatures were all dismissed by the Turkish President.

2. He said that he was instrumental in collecting signatures and, after that, the police surveillance ‘increased’ and he was receiving threatening telephone calls in which the callers said that they would kill him.  He said that the event of collecting signatures was organised by the HDP and through that he became more known by sympathisers with right-wing parties. It was because of his role that police surveillance on him took place and the threats to kill him began to be made over the telephone.  It was due to this that the applicant went to live in city 2.  After giving that evidence to the delegate, the applicant then said that he was not safe anywhere in Turkey because of his profile.

3. The delegate then asked the applicant why Turkish officials and right-wing groups would target him. In response, the applicant said that he was known to the police and many times he had been a target.  He said that he went to live in city 2 and then his mother was threatened because she was in [a] union.  The authorities threatened to ‘retire her’ by government decision.  The delegate asked the applicant to confirm that he was arrested and detained on only two occasions in Turkey and the applicant said that was correct, the last occasion being in 2013.  The delegate again asked the applicant why, in those circumstances and when he did not belong to a political party, he would be at risk of serious harm in Turkey.

4. In response, the applicant broadly referred to participating in protests and then mentioned the ‘shield of Euphrates’ operation and how a journalist was put in jail for exposing that.  He broadly claimed that Turkish officials were annoyed with his activities.  He said that he could not finish university on time because of the trouble he had.  He then said that he was known, made a target, was under surveillance, receiving threats and went to live in city 2.  When asked what he was afraid would happen if he returned to Turkey, the applicant then said that he had received threatening messages, ‘police were coming to home threatening family’ and he was thinking that someone might kill him or he would be put in jail. He did not think he could live in peace anywhere in Turkey.

5. The delegate asked the applicant how he was able to obtain a passport in [2017] and use that passport to leave Turkey if he was of adverse interest to Turkish authorities.  In response, the applicant said that he obtained the passport after changing his name. The delegate put to him that the government would most likely have known that he had changed his name given that he did it through a court and that the government office responsible for issuing passports would have known that as well.  In response, the applicant just referred to a cousin who had been in trouble, disappeared and was absent. He said that knowing those things he took precautions and changed his name. He said that, at that time, he did not have any court case, he had never been jailed, he did not owe anybody and was not escaping anything.

   Evidence to the Tribunal

   Submissions dated 8 May 2019

6. By letter dated 8 May 2019, the representative made submissions on various issues.  With respect to the applicant changing his name in [2017], it was submitted that a lawyer he consulted told him that the change could not be done on political grounds. For that reason the applicant constructed a story for the court that he had to change his name based on a problematic father and a brother who suffered from a mental illness.  With respect to the level of activism undertaken by the applicant, it was submitted that the applicant was not ‘low level’.   In handing out party leaflets, the applicant could easily be attacked by police and ultra- nationalists. It was submitted that all HDP activists were at risk.  With respect to the applicant’s arrest and detention in April 2008, it was submitted that the applicant was detained and investigated because of his political views and also the possibility that he may be a sympathiser with the PKK.

7. The representative submitted that various members of the applicant’s family had adverse profiles with the government because of their support for the PKK or other anti-government activities.  The representative referred to the cousins mentioned in the applicant’s written statement.  With respect to cousin 2, the representative submitted that there was a story published in a [newspaper] at the time about the closure of the [Business 1] for which the cousin worked.   The representative also stated that he was enclosing a court document called a ‘criminal case file’ from 2018 regarding an interlocutory hearing that listed cousin 2 as a defendant.  It was submitted that the applicant is worried that his name will come up during the trial into cousin 2’s activity at the [Business 1].

   The Tribunal hearing

8. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that his evidence in his written statement and his evidence at the interview with the delegate was correct.  The applicant also confirmed that he was arrested and detained in Turkey on two occasions, April 2008 and June 2013.  In those circumstances and because of the large amount of evidence related by the applicant in his written statement and at his interview with the delegate, the Tribunal decided to focus its questions on those aspects of his account that would best enable the Tribunal to determine whether or not there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm in Turkey.  Therefore, the focus of the Tribunal’s questions was on the period after his second and final arrest in June 2013. 

9. Although told at the beginning of the hearing to give his answers in short sentences to allow the interpreter to translate properly, the applicant displayed a consistent tendency throughout the hearing to give very long responses to the Tribunal’s questions.  Frequently, these long answers were indirect and digressive.  When the Tribunal raised this with him, the applicant said that he was nervous and felt that he could not say everything in his written statement or at his interview with the delegate.  The Tribunal could allow for the applicant being nervous, but, his written statement is lengthy as was his interview with the delegate.  His tendency to give long indirect responses to the Tribunal’s questions, caused the Tribunal to have to carefully clarify his evidence with him.

10. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that he graduated from university in [month, year].  When asked if he looked for work in his field of study, the applicant said that he wanted to undertake a [qualification] and to undertake training to be a [Occupation 2].  Both of these quests were unsuccessful, as the applicant understood it, because of his background. In this respect, one individual told him that he had ‘questionings’.  He looked for work in [another workplace] but was told that staff were not needed.

11. In April 2014 he began work as a [Occupation 5] for [Business 2]. He obtained that work by completing an application online. He was dismissed from this employment in November 2014, he said because he was Kurdish and an atheist.  While working for [Business 2], he was asked why he did not fast in Ramadan and he said that he was an atheist.  In addition, his employer found out that he had participated in an anti-government rally. 

12. His next employment commenced in May 2016 ‘[as Occupation 3]’.  This employment ceased in October 2016.  When asked why that was, the applicant said that the AKP built its own foundation in [location] to reflect the Turkish state.  When asked if he was given a reason for his dismissal from this employment, he said that he was told that he was not wanted.  AKP members were kept in employment for this entity.  When asked if he thought that he was dismissed because he was Kurdish and atheist, the applicant said that he was approached by a member of the MHP who said that he knew the applicant’s identity, background and beliefs. This person was [employed by] the person running the [location] and said that he needed to have a gun in case of war, which the applicant understood to be a form of insult toward him because of his background.

13. In February 2017 the applicant found employment in [Occupation 4] but left this employment in May that year to find employment that was more suitable.  He made applications for other positions but they were declined; no reasons being given for that.   Finally, in July 2017, the applicant commenced work for company 1.  He said that this was a special company that was placed in [a facility] that he had attended.  His position related to [completing tasks for Company 1].  The Tribunal asked the applicant when he left this employment. In response, the applicant said that his work for that company ended in December 2017.  When asked why that was, the applicant said that a [co-worker] at his workplace told him that the police had been asking about him on a number of occasions, making their enquiries with the human resources section of the company.  He understood that the police said certain things about him in their enquiries.

14. The human resources section of the company told the applicant not to put them in a difficult situation.  Subsequently, he was dismissed and he understood that this was because of the police visits about him.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why his employer would dismiss him because of those visits. In response, the applicant said that he had gatherings when he was at university. He had been previously arrested and taken into custody. He had been taken into custody on the basis of fighting with terrorists. He said that his mother also was politically active and a [Occupation 2]. He referred to an uncle getting killed in military service and another uncle having mental health problems in military service.

15. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his employer said all of those things to him when he was dismissed. In response, the applicant said that his employer referred to the police visiting human resources and the company finding out that he had changed his surname. The Tribunal then asked the applicant whether, through the visits by the police, his employer found out about his past adverse record with Turkish authorities and the adverse background of family members. In response, the applicant referred to participating in protests in the Gezi Park movement in 2013. He then said that through the police visits his employer found out about his past arrests. At the very least, the employer implied that this was known to the company.  

16. The Tribunal asked the applicant when it was that the police made these visits to his employer.  In response, the applicant said that he worked for his employer for approximately five and half months and the police started coming in the middle of that period.  When asked why the police would start visiting his employer at that time, the applicant said that in August 2017 HDP members were arrested and he took part in a rally against that.  The Tribunal asked the applicant what he did after being dismissed from company 1 in December 2017.  In response, the applicant said that he looked for work but could not find any. He then referred to Turkish forces entering ‘Afrin’ and the applicant collecting signatures as part of a protest against that held on [date].  He said that after [that] people who made posts on social media about this were arrested.   Through his involvement in collecting signatures, he became known among the people and police ‘continued’ to follow him and make threatening telephone calls.

17. The applicant said that because of this, in February 2018, he stopped living in city 1 and went to live with his mother and brother in their home in city 2.  In that period the police came and disturbed his family. He said that they were able to locate him as he had ‘registered’ that address.  They started coming to the home not long after he started living there. When they came they would check him and asked if he knew a certain person. They would ask why he came there and where he had come from. On these occasions they also asked his mother about him. The applicant added that, at the same time, pressure was put on his mother at the [workplace] where she worked.

18. The Tribunal asked the applicant who the person was that police were asking him about. In response, the applicant said that they did not ask him about any person.   He said that, rather, after he left Turkey and came to Australia the Turkish officials came to his mother’s home in city 2 and asked her about him.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when police did this. In response, the applicant said that they came in either January or February 2019.  When asked if they came only once, the applicant said that he did not know, maybe they came twice.  His mother told him that they came there looking for him but also asked about cousin 2 who had court cases. When asked if the police told his mother why they were looking for him, the applicant said that the police just asked his mother where he was and whether he was in contact with cousin 2.

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant what answers he gave the police when they asked him why he had come to live in city 2. In response, the applicant said that he told the police that he just wanted to live with his family.  He then said that the police came back and put an officer in front of the doorstep to the house. They made return visits every three weeks approximately.  When asked to confirm that evidence, the applicant said that they would check him and ask about his mother. They said that because his mother was in a union she could be dismissed from her employment. When asked if he continued to stay in his mother’s home until leaving Turkey in December 2018, the applicant said that he went back and forward. He also stayed with friends. When asked why he did that, the applicant said it was because the police would keep coming and checking. 

20. When asked if the police kept coming to his mother’s home and checking on him until he left Turkey, the applicant said that they continued to do it for one or two weeks after he left the country.  He said that after that, they found out he was not at home. He said that they returned in February 2019 as he mentioned above. The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that the police regularly came to his home to check on him throughout the period he lived in city 2.  In response, the applicant said that was correct.  When asked why the police would do that, the applicant said that they wanted to see if he was there and it was also because of his past adverse record with Turkish authorities.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why police would be so interested in him in that period that they regularly kept checking on him.  In response, the applicant said that he had joined in the protest against the Afrin operation and he was known for having done that.

21. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that after he began work for company 1, the police were following him. In this respect they asked his landlord about him. He said that his landlord lived in premises above him. The police did not question the applicant but they would come in front of his house and knew where he lived.  When asked how he knew that they were following him, the applicant referred to seeing a police car outside his home on many occasions.  The Tribunal asked the applicant when he thought the police actually began doing this.  In response, the applicant thought that it began in September as he had gone in protests in August 2017 against the arrests of certain HDP members.

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that since that time police began following him.  In response, the applicant said that they were following him before that time. When asked if they were doing this therefore all of 2017, the applicant said that was correct.  The Tribunal then asked the applicant whether police were also following him throughout 2016.  Initially, the applicant did not directly respond referring to his work in [Occupation 3] and then referring to a protest held in August 2016 related to the ‘Frat Kalkan movement’. When again asked if police followed him throughout 2016, the applicant said that was correct. When asked to confirm that they did this for the whole year, the applicant said that he could not say exactly. He said that he finished military service in February 2016 then obtained employment. He then again referred to a protest related to the ‘Frat Kalkan movement’ and said that after that they followed him.

23. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether, every year since 2013 he participated in rallies and protests.   In response, the applicant said that he joined in rallies and protests when he could.  When asked if this was as often as once every month, the applicant said that it was annually on the same dates when those protests would take place.   He then said that he thought that he could have participated in approximately 10 protests each year.

24. The applicant said that in the period that he lived in city 2 before leaving Turkey, he did not undertake any political activities including participation in protests.  He said that he recalled being at a bus stop and civil authorities asking people there to check their identity. The applicant believed that indeed they were only interested in him but asked everybody so that their true intention did not stand out.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that he did not participate in protests in city 2 because of the pressure from the police checking on him. In response, the applicant said that was correct. He felt that he was being followed and he did not want his family to be threatened. 

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant when he first began undertaking activities for the HDP.  In response, the applicant said that he began his involvement with that party in 2014. From that time he would attend meetings at a party office and ceased attending meetings once he went to live in city 2.  His involvement in collecting signatures on [date] was his last activity for the party.  He then said that in fact on [date] the army entered Afrin and it was after that the protest was held and he collected signatures.

26. The Tribunal reminded the applicant of the contents of court documents he had submitted with respect to his application to change his name.  The Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention to the reference in these documents to his father’s antisocial behaviour and its adverse impact on him.  The applicant said that all of that information was false.  The Tribunal then drew the applicant’s attention to statements in a court document to the effect that for some time he had been known by the surname he was actually applying to the courts to be able to use.  In response, the applicant said that a lawyer he consulted told him that he could not change his name based on ‘political reasons’. He was also told that the fact his mother and father had separated would not be sufficient reason for him to change his name.  Finally, the applicant said that the reference to certain witnesses stating that the applicant’s prior use of the surname he was applying to the courts for permission to use was all false.

    Credibility concerns

    Areas of inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence

    Events prior to the applicant going to live in city 2 in February 2018

1. In his written statement dated 13 January 2019, the applicant stated as follows (verbatim):

   “On 24 August 2016, Turkish Armed Forces and the Free Syrian Army started the “Shield of Euphrates” operation to stop the YPG and the YPJ forces from joining with Afrin after they crossed to the east of the Euphrates and were advancing.

   …..

   I took part in protests about the support provided by Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the AKP Government via the “Shield of Euphrates” to the massacres against the innocent Kurdish people who lived to the east of Euphrates perpetrated by the Free Syrian Army who was a retrogressive religious terrorist organisation.

   Due to all the negativity developing around me, operations with regard to and around HDP, the pressures put on my family then and now, I decided to change my surname so that neither I nor those around me would suffer because of me.

   [In] 2017 I had my second name “[Surname 1]” deleted and changed my surname from [the applicant gives the two surnames]. 

   In July 2017, I started working at [company 1] with my new name. 

   On [date] I took part in the protests against the Afrin operation of the Turkish Armed Forces. I was at the stands collecting signatures to stop the war. 

   As a result of this, I became known again and targeted. I walked on the street constantly checking if there was anyone following me.

   I was receiving threatening messages and calls from people I did not know.

   There was nobody or place able to protect me.

   I was worn out psychologically. In the end, I moved to [city 2] where my family was.”

2. The Tribunal understood from this evidence that the applicant participated in protests against the Afrin operation prior to changing his name in [2017] and, again, in January 2018. To the delegate, the applicant gave a detailed account of the harm he suffered in Turkey because of his political activities and which led him to change his name in [2017]. After giving that evidence, the applicant then began relating an account of his ‘latest pressure’ that caused him to leave Turkey and come to Australia. As set out above, when asked by the delegate to describe that ‘latest pressure’, the applicant said that on [date] he collected signatures to protest the Turkish armed involvement in Afrin and he mentioned the harm that ensued, namely, police surveillance and threatening telephone calls.

3. In his evidence to the delegate, the applicant made no claim to have participated in protests in relation to the Afrin operation prior to changing his name in [2017]. His evidence to the delegate was all focused on participation in protests in January 2018. In his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant gave a similar account as to his involvement in protests against the Afrin operation. His evidence to the Tribunal was that his involvement commenced in January 2018. In contrast to his written statement, he made no claim to have participated in protests related to the Afrin operation prior to that time.

4. In addition, to the Tribunal, the applicant said that, although he commenced employment with company 1 in July 2017, he was dismissed from his employment in December 2017, because, from August 2017, police began going to his workplace to question staff about him.  This was because of his participation in protests at that time about the arrests of certain HDP members.  The applicant told the Tribunal that, throughout that period, the police were following him, in that they would be present outside his home and asked his landlord about him. His evidence to the Tribunal was that, following his dismissal, in January 2018, he participated in protests against the Afrin operation for which police interest in him was maintained, but, for which, he also received threatening telephone calls. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that, for his safety, in February 2018, he went to live in city 2.

5. The Tribunal was concerned that in his written statement and in his evidence to the delegate, the applicant made no claim that he was dismissed from his employment with company 1.  In his written statement, he made no claim that police came to that company and made enquiries about him.  He made no claim that he was of adverse interest to Turkish authorities in that period, such that he was being followed by the police as he had told the Tribunal.  In his written statement, he just said that he went to live in city 2 because of difficulties he had in January 2018 for taking part in protests against the Afrin operation.  Similarly, to the delegate, although questioned about his employment in Turkey, the applicant made no mention of losing his work with company 1 because of police asking his employer about him.  While at one stage the applicant said that, due to collecting signatures against the Afrin operation, police surveillance ‘increased’, the overall tenor of his evidence to the delegate was that surveillance began and arose from him collecting signatures against the Afrin operation in January 2018.  He did not claim to have been under surveillance in the period he worked for company 1.

6. Pursuant to s.424A of the Act, by letter dated 21 May 2019, the Tribunal put this concern to the applicant and its concern about when the applicant participated in protests against the Afrin operation; prior to [2017] as he claimed in his written statement or in January 2018 as he claimed to the Tribunal and at his interview with the delegate.  In response, by letter dated 27 May 2019, the representative submitted that the initiation of the ‘Shield of Euphrates’ operation in August 2016 and what the applicant referred to as the ‘Afrin operation’ were two different events. It was submitted that the applicant did not take part in protests against the Afrin operation prior to January 2018.  He did, however, take part in protests against the Turkish President’s position in initiating the ‘Shield of Euphrates’ operation.  The consequent ‘negativity’ around him because of his involvement in that and his other political activities caused him to change his name in mid-2017.

7. The Tribunal does not have access to country information that explains precisely what the operations in question are and whether they are, as is claimed, two separate events. That being the case, the Tribunal does not draw any adverse inference against the applicant on this issue.  With respect to the claims made at the hearing about what happened to the applicant after taking up employment with company 1 and the omission of those claims from the applicant’s written statement and his evidence to the delegate, in the submissions of 27 May 2019, the representative referred to the applicant’s protection visa application forms.  In those forms, with respect to employment, the applicant said that he was unemployed from December 2017 because he was going through a difficult period ‘psychologically’ and Turkish authorities were targeting him.

8. This statement made by the applicant in his protection visa application forms in no way accounts for his failure to advance in his written statement and in his evidence to the delegate the claims he made at the Tribunal hearing about this particular period in his life.  As stated above, to the Tribunal, the applicant made important claims about the police going to his workplace from August 2017 making enquiries about him and following his participation in protests that same month against the arrests of certain HDP members.  It was those enquiries that led to his dismissal from his employment in December 2017 and, in that period, so he told the Tribunal, police were asking his landlord about him and watching him.  Those important claims were not made in his written statement or in his evidence to the delegate.  The applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for that.

9. In the submissions of 27 May 2019, the representative stated that, if the Tribunal remained concerned by this particular issue, then the applicant should be given a further opportunity to respond.  The Tribunal rejects that submission because, in its letter of 21 May 2019, the Tribunal expressed in clear terms its concerns on this matter and the applicant has been provided with an opportunity to respond through his representative. As discussed above, the reason advanced by the applicant for the omission of important evidence from his written statement and his evidence to the delegate is unsatisfactory.

   Police interest in the applicant in city 2

10. As stated above, in his written statement and in his evidence at his interview with the delegate, the applicant said that because of his participation in protests in January 2018 and the threats and police surveillance that followed, he went to live in city 2.  In terms of harm encountered while living there, in his written statement, the applicant gave the following account (verbatim):

    “They started threatening my family again. The [employer] administration wanted my mother to quit the [union] of which she was a member. The police told her that she would be dismissed [otherwise].

    I stayed at friends’ places occasionally. The controls were never normalised. I did not want my family to be threatened.”

11. To the delegate, the applicant also mentioned his mother being pressured by Turkish authorities.  As set out above, after he had given evidence about his decision to go to city 2 to live with family, the delegate asked the applicant why he would be targeted.  In his responses, the applicant mentioned the pressure on his mother over her membership of a union and his past difficulties with the police, in particular, those arising from his activities in January 2018.   

12. In contrast to this evidence, to the Tribunal, with respect to this period he lived in city 2, the applicant again mentioned his mother being pressured at the [workplace] where she worked and in relation to her membership of a union.  He also mentioned at times going to stay with friends.  However, the applicant also gave an account of intense police interest being shown in him.  He said that Turkish police frequently and regularly went to the home where he was living with his mother and brother to check on him.  He said that they began doing this almost as soon as he began living there and they were still making these visits as at the time he left Turkey. 

13. At one point, the applicant went as far as stating that they put an officer in front of the door to the family home.  Further, he said that, in this period, while waiting at a bus stop, authorities came and checked the identity of everyone present, but, in reality doing this only to disguise the fact that they just wanted to check on him.  Pursuant to s.424A of the Act, by letter dated 21 May 2019, the Tribunal put to the applicant that his evidence about police interest shown in him when he lived in city 2 appeared to be inconsistent because the claims he advanced to the Tribunal about intense police interest being shown in him when he lived there, were not mentioned in his written statement nor at his interview with the delegate.

14. In response, by letter dated 27 May 2018, the representative submitted that the applicant’s evidence in his written statement, to the delegate and at the Tribunal hearing was consistent.  It was submitted that what the applicant had done was provide statements ‘from alternative angles describing one and the same event’.  The Tribunal rejects that submission because it does not deal with the concern raised by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal’s concern is that, to the Tribunal, the applicant said that throughout the period he lived in city 2, police frequently came to his home to check on him.  His evidence was to the effect that police had an intense interest in him at that time.  The applicant has made no such claim in his written statement nor at his interview with the delegate.

15. As set out above, the delegate pressed the applicant as to why he would be targeted in Turkey.  While he claimed that he would not be safe anywhere in Turkey because of his profile, he did not claim to the delegate that police demonstrated intense interest in him when he lived in city 2.  The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant once said that police were coming to the home threatening family, but, his overall evidence was that the only difficulty he encountered in city 2 was the pressure on his mother.  If that single reference to police coming to the home was meant to be a reference to them regularly and frequently coming to his home to check on him as he told the Tribunal, the applicant would have said this in his written statement which was signed and submitted by him after his interview with the delegate. As stated above, his written statement does not contain that evidence. 

16. The Tribunal also acknowledges very broad claims made by the applicant in his protection visa application form and in the submissions of 3 January 2019 by the representative, that the applicant was persecuted in every city in Turkey in which he lived.  If that was truly the case, the Tribunal could reasonably expect the applicant to say in his written statement and in his interview with the delegate that in the period he lived in city 2, police maintained intense interest in him. 

17. Accordingly, again, important claims made to the Tribunal about adverse interest held in the applicant by Turkish authorities have not been made in the applicant’s written statement nor in his evidence to the delegate. The applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for that.  The representative submitted that, in the Tribunal’s letter of 21 May 2019, the Tribunal did not provide direct quotes from the applicant’s evidence at his interview with the delegate and in his written statement.  The Tribunal considers that, in its letter of 21 May 2019, the applicant’s evidence on this concern was sufficiently set out and explained. The discrepancy in question is clear from the letter.

18. The representative could easily have listened to an audio recording of the interview with the delegate (as the Tribunal has done) if contesting the Tribunal’s understanding of the applicant’s evidence in that interview.  The representative had access to the applicant’s written statement.  The omission of important evidence at those two earlier stages was clearly and fairly put to the applicant in the Tribunal’s letter of 21 May 2019.  A satisfactory explanation for that omission has not been put forward.

    Police interest in the applicant after he left Turkey

19. In his written statement and to the delegate, the applicant expressed a fear of suffering harm if he returned to Turkey.  At his interview with the delegate, the applicant was asked a number of times why he would be at risk of suffering harm in Turkey.  The tenor of the applicant’s evidence to the delegate and in his written statement was that he was at risk of suffering serious harm in Turkey because of the events that he claims occurred when he lived there.  To the Tribunal, the applicant said that after he left Turkey, Turkish authorities twice went to his family home in city 2 asking about him and his contact with cousin 2 who they were also pursuing.  He thought that these visits occurred in January or February 2019 over a period of one or two weeks.  They stopped when the authorities found out he was not living there.

20. Pursuant to s.424A of the Act, by letter dated 21 May 2019, the Tribunal put to the applicant that he did not make these claims about Turkish authorities pursuing him after he left Turkey in his written statement nor at his interview with the delegate.  Further, acknowledging the possibility that when the applicant’s written statement was prepared and when interviewed by the delegate, the claimed visits may not have taken place, or, if they had, the applicant may not have learned of them at those times, the Tribunal also put to the applicant that in written submissions dated 8 May 2019 from his representative, there was also no claim made that Turkish authorities went to his home to find him after he left Turkey.

21. In response, by letter dated 27 May 2019, the representative submitted that the applicant only became aware of the police visits to his home after he left Turkey, a day or two before the Tribunal hearing.  To support this claim, the representative provided a statutory declaration made on 28 May 2019 by ‘witness 1’ who said that since early 2019 he and the applicant’s mother had been in contact with each other. He said that through text messages, she told him that, on ‘multiple occasions’ police came to her home asking for the applicant.  Witness 1 stated that the applicant’s mother did not want the applicant to be told about these visits in fear that this could cause his mental health to deteriorate and the applicant might harm himself.  Witness 1 stated that, in his dealings with the applicant, he also thought he should not be told about the police visits and so he kept that from the applicant ‘until it was brought to [his] attention this information may actually be necessary to [the applicant’s] case’.

22. The representative also provided records of text messages purportedly between the applicant’s mother and witness 1 over the period from 2 January 2019 until 8 May 2019.  According to these records, around 10 January 2019 and 28 February 2019, Turkish police came to the applicant’s mother asking about the applicant and, on the second occasion, asking about cousin 2.  Both the applicant’s mother and witness 1 felt that the applicant’s mental health was poor and that he might harm himself, possibly commit suicide.  For that reason, neither person told the applicant about these visits.  In early May the applicant’s mother asked witness 1 if the applicant could go to another country from Australia in the event his review application was unsuccessful.  Witness 1 asked the applicant’s lawyer about that and, at that time, told the lawyer about the police visits.  The lawyer told witness 1, in effect, that these visits had to be disclosed to the Tribunal.  On 8 May 2019 witness 1 and the applicant’s mother decided to tell the applicant about them.

23. In essence, it is claimed that news of the occurrence of these visits by Turkish police, was withheld from the applicant so as not to upset him.  If these visits truly occurred, the Tribunal does not believe that the applicant’s mother and witness 1 would refrain from telling him about that for that or any reason.  The applicant’s mother would have well known the applicant’s objective of coming to Australia and seeking to remain here, namely, to avoid being harmed by Turkish authorities. Indeed, in these records, the mother states that she fears that the applicant will be killed if he returns to Turkey.  The Tribunal finds it reasonable to infer that the applicant’s mother would also know that these visits by the police after the applicant left Turkey would be important information for the applicant to have in his quest to be able to remain in Australia to save his life.

24. Therefore, even making allowance for her and witness 1’s appreciation of the applicant’s mental state and how the news of the police visits might affect him, it is, nevertheless, inconceivable, that they would withhold this information from him so as not to distress or upset him.  While the police visits appear to have occurred after the applicant made his written statement and was interviewed by the delegate, they precede the submissions made by the representative of 8 May 2019 which makes no mention of them.  These visits demonstrate interest in locating the applicant after he lawfully departed from Turkey using his own passport.  They are evidence that should the applicant return to Turkey, Turkish officials would apprehend and possibly harm him.  If these visits truly occurred, the Tribunal considers that the applicant would have been told about them at the time that they occurred and he would then have, at the earliest opportunity, informed his representative about them.  The reasons advanced as to why the applicant was not told of these visits until just prior to the Tribunal hearing are not credible.

    The applicant’s change of name

1. To support his claim that he changed his name in [2017] the applicant submitted documents purportedly issued by a court in Turkey. According to these documents, the applicant wanted to change his name due to the adverse impacts of being associated with his family. In this respect, according to the court documents the applicant’s father had a habit of committing offences and engaging in antisocial behaviour and the applicant’s brother had a mental illness. According to these documents, the applicant had been using the new surname for some years and the court received evidence from witnesses to that effect.

2. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that the reasons advanced in these documents as to why he wanted to his change his name were fabricated and this came about because he consulted a lawyer about changing his name and told the lawyer that he wanted to do that because of the difficulties he had encountered, to that point, with Turkish authorities due to his political activities.  He said that the lawyer told him it would not be possible to change his name on that basis, and so, he fabricated the account of family difficulties mentioned above.

3. Consistent with his evidence, was a letter from this lawyer submitted to the Tribunal by the applicant, in which the lawyer states that she advised the applicant on changing his surname for ‘political reasons’.  The lawyer also mentions the applicant consulting her about making a complaint following his detention and maltreatment during the ‘Gezi Park’ protests in 2013. The Tribunal understood all of this evidence to be to the effect that the applicant discussed with the lawyer the difficulties he had been having with Turkish authorities because of his political activities and, for that reason, wanted to change his name.

4. In stark contrast to this evidence, when interviewed by the delegate and asked about his name change and, specifically, how he did that, the applicant said that he consulted a lawyer about the matter and told the lawyer that he wanted to change his name.  To the delegate, the applicant specifically said that he did not have the option of explaining to the lawyer the pressure that had been put on him by official organisations due to his political activities. Rather, to the delegate, the applicant said that he just told the lawyer that he disagreed with his father, his parents were separated and he wanted to change his name.  The tenor of that evidence is that the applicant told the lawyer that he wanted to change his name because of family problems. 

5. That account is inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he told the lawyer he wanted to change his name because of the difficulties he had been having with Turkish authorities due to his political activities.  Pursuant to s.424A of the Act, by letter dated 21 May 2019, the Tribunal put this inconsistency to the applicant.  In response, by letter dated 27 May 2019, the representative submitted that the applicant’s evidence to the delegate was that he did not have the option to tell the court that he wanted to change his name for political reasons.  The Tribunal has carefully examined the applicant’s evidence to the delegate and while the applicant refers to telling a lawyer only about wanting to change his name because of family difficulties, the Tribunal is willing to allow for the possibility that the reference to the word ‘lawyer’ was a reference to the court to which he applied to change his name. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not draw any adverse inference against the applicant on this particular issue.  However, the Tribunal still holds concerns about the applicant’s change of name and they are discussed further below.

   Areas of the applicant’s account that appeared to be highly improbable

   Treatment of the applicant by Turkish Authorities

6. According to country information, in July 2016, elements of the Turkish military, aided by elements of the Gulen movement, staged a coup d’etat against the Turkish government.[7]  In response, the government ‘implemented exceptional measures’ including a state of emergency that remained in place until July 2018 and which gave the government ‘enhanced powers’.[8]  The government stated that the purpose of these measures was to fight against the ‘Fethullah Gulen Terror Organisation’.[9]  The state of emergency gave security forces ‘extensive powers’ to ‘crack down on alleged supporters of the ‘Gulen Movement’ from within state institutions.[10] The authorities launched legal proceedings against 441,195 people on ‘a variety of terrorism charges’, including for being Gulen supporters, members of the PKK and other organisations.[11] 

   [7] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 2.5.

   [8] Ibid.

   [9] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 2.54.

   [10] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 2.55.

   [11] Ibid.

7. In addition to these measures, country information indicates that the government’s response to the attempted coup adversely impacted on Kurds.[12]  The government used state of emergency powers to target a wide range of Kurdish ‘individuals, journalists, politicians and political activists, and civil society organisations accused of supporting the PKK’.[13]  One human rights group reported in January 2018 that 31% of all people arrested in government operations since October 2016 were allegedly associated with Kurdish or leftist groups.[14] 

   [12] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 3.5.

   [13] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 3.7

   [14] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 3.7.

8. Although the applicant, himself, never claimed to have been a part of the Gulen movement, the tenor of country information is that the state of emergency powers have been used to target Kurdish people including political activists.  In the light of that country information, the Tribunal could reasonably expect that the applicant would have been at the least arrested, under the state of emergency, in view of his claimed history of political activism to that point.  That is more so, when, to the Tribunal, the applicant claimed that he was being followed by Turkish authorities from approximately August 2016 and thereafter.  Further, throughout his evidence to the Department and the Tribunal, the applicant has made much about having members of (extended) family who have, in some capacity, been of adverse interest to Turkish authorities.  His representative, in submissions of 3 January and 8 May 2019, submitted that Turkish authorities considered to him to be a PKK supporter.

9. Similarly, country information also indicates that in the wake of a referendum in April 2017 to amend the constitution, security authorities ‘severely constrained’ opposition campaigning and local groups reported arrests and harassment of opposition activists.[15]  The Tribunal was again concerned that in this period, the applicant was not arrested and detained even though he claimed to be of adverse interest in the authorities and politically active.

   [15] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 2.34.

10. When the Tribunal put these concerns to him, the applicant said that he was not in the Gulen movement which was responsible for the attempted coup.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that in the light of his claimed adverse record with Turkish authorities, it still questioned why he would not have been detained and questioned in the wake of the coup and the Turkish government’s response to it (as mentioned above). In response, the applicant said that it was civil servants, judges, barristers, teachers and community members on the ground level who lost their positions.  These people did not go to jail.  He lost his position [as Occupation 3]. 

11. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant was not employed as a civil servant and had no involvement with the Gulen movement, country information indicates that large numbers of people associated with Kurdish groups, including the PKK, were arrested under the state of emergency which was used to target a wide range of Kurdish people including political activists which the applicant claims to be.   It was opposition activists who were arrested during the referendum in April 2017 yet the last time that the applicant was arrested and detained was in 2013 during the Gezi park protests.  The fact that the applicant was not arrested and detained in the period as discussed does not, by itself, demonstrate that his evidence is false.  However, it does cast significant doubt over his claims to have been of adverse interest to Turkish authorities.

12. Country information about the ability to obtain a Turkish passport and to use that passport to leave Turkey lawfully, suggests that the authorities keep comprehensive records on the backgrounds of the population, information that is readily accessible to immigration and law enforcement agencies.[16] Although the government does not generally require its citizens to obtain an exit permit to leave the country, Turkish law states that a Turkish national’s freedom to leave Turkey may be restricted on account of criminal investigation or prosecution.[17] Under the state of emergency, in July 2016 alone, the government cancelled 50,000 passports in relation to people under investigation or prosecution in the wake of the coup.[18] In the decision to refuse the protection visa application, the delegate discussed country information to a similar effect, including the source relied on by the Tribunal.

    [16] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 5.26, 5.36, 5.39.  At 5.36 DFAT states:

    “The Interior Ministry approves and issues passports. Several hundred passport application centres are located within police stations across the country. Passport applicants must apply in person at the passport office, and must provide two passport photographs, their national identity card, proof of payment, and an original copy of their previous passport (if applicable). Applicants are also required to provide their fingerprints, which are stored in a centralised computer database along with the applicant’s photograph.”

    At 5.26, DFAT states:

    “Turkish authorities maintain a range of databases that provide information to immigration and law enforcement officers. The General Information Gathering System, which provides information on arrest warrants, previous arrests, travel restrictions, military service record (see Military Objectors) and taxation status, is available at most air and seaports across the country. A separate border control information system used by the police collates information on past arrivals and departures.”

    At 5.39, DFAT states:

    “International sources report that the introduction of biometric e-passports in 2010 and ID cards in 2016 and the expanded use of computerised database systems has greatly increased the security of these forms of identification.”

    [17] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 5.27.

    [18] See DFAT, Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October 2018, 5.38. 

13. The Tribunal infers from this country information that in issuing passports and when people depart from Turkey, the Turkish authorities are well aware of the backgrounds of those concerned including whether they are or have been of adverse interest to the government. The Tribunal finds it reasonable to infer from this country information that if a Turkish national was of significant adverse interest to Turkish authorities such a person might not be given a passport or be allowed to travel out of Turkey.   In the light of this country information, the Tribunal was concerned that, first, the applicant could obtain a passport and, second, that he could use the passport to lawfully depart from Turkey in December 2018.

14. Although the applicant changed his name in [2017], not long after that, to the Tribunal, he said that Turkish police went to his workplace making inquiries about him and also had him under close surveillance.  He said that the enquiries at his workplace related to his participation in pro HDP protests in August 2017.  In those circumstances and in the light of the country information, the Tribunal had difficulty accepting that the applicant would be issued with a Turkish passport, even after changing his name, if the police had been able to locate his workplace and residence under that new name. 

15. Further, the applicant claimed that it was the police surveillance and threatening telephone calls that forced him to go and live in city 2 in early 2018.  To the Tribunal, the applicant related an account of Turkish authorities frequently and regularly going to his home in that city to check on him.  In those circumstances and in the light of the country information the Tribunal also had difficulty accepting that the applicant would be allowed to lawfully depart from Turkey in December 2018.

16. When the Tribunal put these concerns to him, the applicant’s responses were broadly the same as those he gave the delegate on this exact same issue, as set out earlier in this decision. First, he said that when he changed his surname, the judge sent his identification to the court see if there were any offences that he had committed such as burglary or robbery.  He said that ‘it’ was found to be ‘OK’ and therefore authorised.  The Tribunal acknowledges these claims by the applicant and accepts that he obtained a passport in July 2017 not long after changing his name through the courts.  The Tribunal also acknowledges that this was prior to the police going to his workplace at company 1 from August 2017.  Even so, the Tribunal remained sceptical at the applicant’s ability to obtain a passport when he did.  If, as country information indicates, the government is cautious about allowing perceived opponents to be able to travel, the Tribunal could expect that the agency responsible for issuing passports would be aware of the applicant’s true identity and background. The Tribunal is sceptical of any claim that the agency in question would not know about that simply because the applicant, by Court order, changed his name.

17. In response to these concerns, the applicant also said that after he was dismissed from his employment with company 1, after the Afrin protest, after he was taken into custody, in February 2018 he left everything.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was saying that, after his participation in the protests against the Afrin operation in January 2018, he had been taken into custody. In response, the applicant said that after that protest he went to city 2.  From that time, he did not join any protests or rallies. The authorities checked on him and threatened his family. He did not share anything on social media and therefore he was not taken into custody.  He was very careful in that period in city 2 .

18. The Tribunal asked the applicant why Turkish authorities would allow him to leave the country when, prior to that time, they had been constantly checking on him. In response, the applicant said that he obtained a visa from a certain woman for a fee and she got that visa from overseas.  She knew his situation as he explained it to her. She told him that for 15,000 Euros she would give him the visa.  The Tribunal again asked the applicant why Turkish officials would allow him to leave the country in his claimed circumstances.  In response, the applicant said that although he was at home being watched, checked and followed in city 2 he did not go in any rallies. There were no court cases against him and so he took the chance to leave the country. Cousin 2 was also not being searched but afterwards a search warrant was issued for him. 

19. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s evidence that, after January 2018, he did not undertake political activities and, further, his evidence that there were no court cases against him.  The Tribunal also acknowledges his claims about using an agent to obtain a visa for another country.  However, the fact remains, the applicant is claiming that for almost one year before he left Turkey, Turkish officials were frequently coming to his home to check on him.  Prior to that, in his former place of residence, he was receiving threatening telephone calls and being watched by the police, in addition to being dismissed from his employment because of adverse police interest in him.  In all of those circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s ability to leave Turkey lawfully using his own passport casts significant doubt over his claims to have been of adverse interest to the Turkish authorities.

20. In submissions of 8 May 2019, the representative submits that country information does not go as far as asserting that a political activist opposing the government could never receive a passport and use that passport to leave Turkey.  It was submitted that the country information indicated that an unknown number of such people have reported being unable to travel.  Without citing any specific country information, the representative then asserted that many activists of the HDP claimed that they could leave and return to Turkey so long as they did not have a ‘criminal prosecution or conviction’ and that was due to the nature of Turkish bureaucracy. 

21. While the representative makes that submission, the representative also submitted that Turkey has a ‘sophisticated intelligence system’ and that ‘many human rights defenders have reported that they have been prevented from travelling’.  The Tribunal cannot comment on the circumstances of those activists who can leave Turkey and those who cannot.  What does concern the Tribunal is that, in the light of what the representative calls a sophisticated intelligence system, this applicant, who claims to have been under intense scrutiny from Turkish officials, particularly in the year before he left Turkey, was able to obtain a passport and lawfully leave the country.  As stated above, those factors cast significant doubt over his claims to be of adverse interest to the Turkish government.

    The applicant’s willingness to undertake political activities after deciding he had to leave Turkey

22. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that in January 2015 he applied for a visa to travel to [Country 1].  When asked why he took this step, the applicant said that he thought that following his dismissal from [Business 2], which was due to his adverse record and political activities, things could become worse for him.  When asked what he thought would happen to him, at that time, if he remained in Turkey, the applicant said that he thought that he would face arrest. He said that he had no right to work at that time and again was concerned by the reasons he was dismissed from his employment with [Business 2].

23. After giving this evidence about his unsuccessful attempt made in January 2015 to obtain a visa for [Country 1], the Tribunal asked the applicant what he then did to attempt to leave Turkey.  In response, the applicant said that after the ‘Afrin incident’ he came to Australia. He said that he completed military service and was in and out of work.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was saying that following the failure of his attempt to obtain a visa for [Country 1] he decided to remain in Turkey.  In response, the applicant said that he wanted to complete military service and then leave Turkey. 

24. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to his evidence to the Department he had relatives who had left Turkey because of conflict with the government. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he also, therefore, did not flee Turkey.  While the applicant claims he could not get the visa for [Country 1] because he had not completed military service, the Tribunal was concerned as to why, after that, his decision to leave would depend on completing military service. In response, the applicant referred to his work for the [Business 2] and losing that employment because of his beliefs.  He then said that his next attempt to leave Turkey was not until he went to live in city 2. 

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not try to leave Turkey before that. In response, the applicant said that he did not have the means to leave. He would need an account with the bank and work status.  In city 2, he met a woman who told him that she could make arrangements to have him sent to Australia.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm what it understood to be his evidence about attempts to leave Turkey.  In this respect, the Tribunal put to the applicant that following his unsuccessful attempt in January 2015 to obtain a visa for [Country 1], he took no further steps to leave Turkey until early 2018 when he went to live in city 2.  In response, the applicant said that was correct. He then said that, prior to that time, he did not have the right connections. He tried to make conditions right but that did not happen. He needed regular work.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not just leave Turkey and seek asylum in another country as his relatives did once his application for [Country 1] visa failed. In response, the applicant said that he needed a visa to enter Europe and he was not in the right means for that.

2. The Tribunal understood from the applicant’s evidence that, although his attempt to obtain a visa to travel to [Country 1] in January 2015 was unsuccessful, he nevertheless was wanting to leave Turkey for his safety and it was only in 2018 that the opportunity for that arose when he met a woman who said that she could help him.  With that in mind, the Tribunal then asked the applicant why, after his attempt to obtain a [Country 1] Visa was unsuccessful, he would be participating in political activities and put himself at risk of suffering the very harm he was trying to avoid when applying for [Country 1] Visa. In response, the applicant said that he commenced military service in August 2015 and came across problems. After military service there was a lot of injustice. He referred to his time at university and then said that he had a certain standing in the community. He said that one undertook activities but there were many problems. He was put in a position that he could not be quiet.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he was willing to undertake political activities after being dismissed from his employment in December 2017 due to police enquiries with his employer about him and when he had said that, prior to that time, he observed police outside the place he was renting and police asking his landlord about him.  In response, the applicant referred to the ‘Frat Kalkan movement’ in which the ‘AKP system’ committed injustices.  He said that in that operation, they made the Kurdish look ‘backwards and uneducated’.

4. When asked if he was simply saying that notwithstanding his claimed circumstances at the time he had to protest and speak out when he saw injustice.  In response, the applicant said that was correct.  He said that he had a standing and joined in activities.  He said that, however, afterwards, he was afraid for his life and had seen others being imprisoned.  Then he took a step back.  After giving that evidence, the applicant then referred to cousin 2 who he said [worked] for [Business 1] and who continued fighting up until the authorities started searching for him.  He said that one would want to speak up for injustice being done to one’s self.

5. The Tribunal can well understand the applicant’s argument about having convictions and wanting to speak out against injustice.  What troubles the Tribunal though, is the fact that the applicant as early as January 2015 was wanting to leave Turkey for his safety.  In [2017] he took the step of changing his surname because of his difficulties with Turkish authorities to that point, difficulties that arose because of his activism and anti-government views.  Even if the Tribunal was to allow for the possibility that the applicant might want to speak out when he thought that was required, prior to [2017], the Tribunal remained concerned that he would risk doing this after that time.

6. In particular, the Tribunal remained concerned that the applicant would take the risk of involvement in protests in January 2018 having been dismissed from his employment just before that because of adverse police attention, itself arising from his involvement in protests in August 2017.  While the applicant claims that after January 2018 he refrained from undertaking any political activities in fear for his safety, in his claimed circumstances, the Tribunal would have expected him to have refrained from political activism well before then.  The applicant’s claims about adhering to his convictions do not resolve the Tribunal’s concerns.

   The applicant’s change of name

7. As stated above, to the Tribunal, the applicant said that in [2017] he changed his name by adopting a different surname.  The applicant said that he took that step due to the difficulties he had been having with Turkish authorities before that.  When asked what he was hoping to achieve by doing this, the applicant said that he did not want to disturb those around him and that was why had to stay ‘distant’ with his family.  Around that time, he was able to obtain employment at company 1.  Because of his past difficulties, he did not want anyone suffering for what he had done. 

8. The Tribunal was concerned that, while the applicant did this, so he said, to enable him to get employment and also to prevent his family from suffering because of him, he only took this step in 2017.  To the Tribunal, the applicant said that he had been in conflict with Turkish authorities as long ago as 2008 when he was arrested and it was because of his difficulties with Turkish authorities that, in January 2015, he applied for a visa to go to [Country 1] and actually leave Turkey for his safety.

9. The Tribunal put to the applicant that if he had truly changed his name as a means of his family and himself avoiding harm due to his past adverse record, the Tribunal had difficulty accepting that he did not do this this well before 2017, especially given his claimed history of his conflict with Turkish authorities and pro-government groups.  In response, the applicant said that he waited. He wanted to complete his military service and he got work [in Occupation 3].  He joined many protests and after [working in Occupation 3] he could not find work.  After all of this had reflected on him ‘in this way’, he did not want his family to be threatened and the people around him to be disturbed.  After viewing all of the ‘incidents in this way’, he thought changing his name was a solution for him and afterwards he found work.

10. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether the purpose of changing his name was to enable him to find employment. In response, the applicant said that he did not do it just for that reason but he wanted to have the pressure lifted off him. When asked how changing his name achieved that, the applicant said that with the name change he would not be harming anyone around him and he would have the chance to find work.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he changed his name because his family had suffered because of him.  In response, the applicant said that his mother always told him not to join those incidents.  Pressure had been building on his mother because of him and from [her superior] of the [workplace] where she [worked] for participating in rallies. He then said that when he was arrested at university in April 2008 the authorities sent his family a letter telling them that he had been ‘removed’ from [the] ‘school’.

11. Finally, the applicant said that his family suffered in the sense of being worried about him.  The Tribunal can understand the applicant not wanting his family to suffer because of him and also concerns about being able to obtain employment.  However, the Tribunal still remains concerned the applicant did not take this step of changing his name until so long after his conflict with Turkish authorities and pro-government groups began and after he left university and had to seek employment.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant preferred to ‘wait’ as he claimed to complete military service and then undertake work [in Occupation 3].  The delay on the applicant’s part in applying for this name change strongly suggested that the reason he did this was not because of his political activism and the consequent difficulties he claims he encountered.  The delay just cast further concern over his truthfulness as a witness.

12. In addition, in his written statement, the applicant claimed that name 1 was a ‘political name’ which caused students with right wing views to ask him why he had that name, where he was from and whether he was ‘a Kurd or a Turk’.  In his written statement he said that when arrested in April 2008, police said to him ‘so, you are the famous [name 1]’.  They also asked him why he had that name and whether he was linked to a certain anti-government leader.  To the Tribunal, the applicant said that name 1 was the name of an anti-government leader and, for that reason, name 1 had caused him difficulty.  People caused him trouble for having that name.  To the delegate, the applicant has given a similar account about the significance of this name and the difficulties that it caused him.  Similar claims are made by the representative in submissions of 3 January 2019.

13. The tenor of the applicant’s evidence was that name 1 brought him adverse attention from political opponents and Turkish authorities.  The Tribunal was concerned that the applicant changed his name in June [2017] to avoid adverse attention from the authorities and its impacts on him and his family, but retained name 1 and instead stopped using his original surname.  As set out above, the delegate shared the same concern and when this was put to him by her and by the Tribunal, his explanations were as follows.  He said that his mother gave him that name. Had he kept the same surname, his family would suffer.  So, he deleted his middle name, [Name 1] or ‘[variation of Name 1]’ and changed his surname.  Because of everything that he had lived he had a ‘standing’ or status to defend his thoughts.  His change of name could not be done for political reasons.  He said that, here, the ‘judge’ affects the whole thing. He agreed that name 1 was a political name but if he had changed his whole name that could have raised suspicions.

14. The Tribunal has carefully considered these submissions from the applicant, but, while the Tribunal can understand the applicant changing his surname, for the reasons he has given, the Tribunal is still concerned that the applicant, in his claimed circumstances, would retain a name that had brought suspicion and trouble on him from others.  The Tribunal finds highly improbable his account of doing so and the various explanations he has put forward for that are unconvincing. They did not alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns on this issue.

    Conclusions on credibility

15. The Tribunal has identified areas of inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence.  The applicant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation in relation to some of these areas.  They are the applicant’s failure to mention in his written statement and at his interview with the delegate, claims he made to the Tribunal about adverse attention from police from August 2007 while working for company 1; intense police attention in the period he lived in city 2 and visits by the police to his family after he left Turkey.  The applicant’s claims about those matters are very significant to his protection claims because they are all close to or follow his departure from Turkey.

16. In addition to those concerns, the Tribunal has identified areas of the applicant’s account that are highly improbable.  The Tribunal finds highly improbable the applicant’s claim to be of significant adverse interest to Turkish authorities yet not arrested or detained by them in a period when country information indicates that someone in his claimed circumstances would be at great risk of that happening.  The Tribunal finds highly improbable the applicant’s claim to be of significant adverse interest to Turkish authorities yet able to obtain a passport and use that passport to lawfully depart from Turkey. The Tribunal finds highly improbable the applicant’s claim to have undertaken political activities at a time when he had already made one unsuccessful attempt to leave Turkey for his own safety.  The Tribunal finds highly improbable the applicant’s claim to have changed his name for his and his family’s safety, long after the need for doing so, in his claimed circumstances, would have arisen and, at the same time, retaining a name that had led to others regarding him adversely and treating him as such.

17. Considered cumulatively, these credibility concerns lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant is not a witness of truth.  These credibility concerns lead the Tribunal to disbelieve the applicant’s account of all events that he claims occurred after commencing employment with company 1 in July 2017.   Beyond accepting that the applicant gained employment with that entity, the Tribunal has no credible evidence about what happened to the applicant after that; including the terms on which he ceased employment, when he ceased that employment and the true reasons he went to live in city 2.  The Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about undertaking political activities in that period and adverse interest being shown in him by Turkish police and associated right wing groups or individuals.  The Tribunal does not believe that the applicant was pursued or followed by police (or anyone else) at any time after July 2017 nor that he received threatening telephone calls.

18. Because the applicant is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal finds that, although the applicant changed his name in [2017], there is no credible evidence as to why he did this.  The concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility, considered cumulatively, also lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant’s evidence about his activities, profile with Turkish authorities or right-wing groups and harm suffered at their hands in the period prior to July 2017 has been exaggerated and embellished.  The Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant was arrested and detained on the two occasions he claimed.  However, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence that he was of adverse interest to or suffered harm at the hands of Turkish authorities or any other group or person in Turkey after his second detention in June 2013.  The Tribunal disbelieves his claims that police were following him in 2016 and throughout 2017. 

19. Further, in view of the concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to what political activities the applicant undertook after 2013.[19]  He may have taken part in assisting the HDP in elections in mid-2015 but the Tribunal has no credible evidence about the extent of those activities and no credible evidence that the applicant suffered harm as a result.  The Tribunal has no credible evidence as to why the applicant left Turkey and came to Australia and no credible evidence as to why he does not want to return there.  The Tribunal has no credible evidence that Turkish authorities or anyone else in Turkey seeks to harm him.

    [19] This includes activity on social media.

20. As stated above, the applicant has made much about having members of family, mainly extended family, who have been of adverse interest to Turkish authorities.  Whether or not these claims are true, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence that the applicant has been of adverse interest to Turkish authorities or harmed on that ground.  The applicant has asserted that this family background (as well as being Kurdish, Alevi and atheist) has led to him being ostracised at school and at university and thereafter, but, the Tribunal finds that this is embellishment and the Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant was ostracised and maltreated as he claims including while performing military service.  In particular, the applicant may well have a relative who worked for [Business 1] closed down by Turkish authorities and who is now being pursued by them. However, the Tribunal has no credible evidence that Turkish authorities have any interest in the applicant on the basis of this relative. Similarly, the applicant’s claimed that his mother assisted another relative who was in the PKK, but, the Tribunal has no credible evidence that this has led to or would lead to the applicant suffering harm.  

21. The applicant also claims that Turkish officials pressured his mother, particularly, in the period that he lived in city 2 in relation to her membership of a union.  Because the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about his dealings with Turkish authorities in the period he lived in city 2 the Tribunal disbelieves his claims that his mother was pressured at that time.  Possibly in the past, his mother may have been treated as he alleges, but the Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant has been of adverse interest to Turkish authorities on that ground.

22. The applicant has also claimed to have lost employment because of his family, ethnic and religious background as well as his claimed activism.  Because the applicant is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to why the applicant did not maintain those positions of employment that he claims to have held.  If anything, his claims as to why he lost those positions are another example of his embellishment and exaggeration.  The Tribunal finds it has no credible evidence that this applicant was or would be denied employment in Turkey.

23. In reaching its findings on credibility, the Tribunal considered documents submitted to corroborate the applicant’s claims.   The applicant submitted documents related to the events of [2008] when he was arrested and detained.[20] The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims about being arrested, maltreated and detained and expelled from his university dormitory in [2008]. However, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds the remainder of the applicant’s claims about harassment and maltreatment suffered at university are embellished and exaggerated. The Tribunal finds it has no credible evidence about this.

    [20] Those documents comprised a decision dated [in] 2008 by a chief public prosecutor; a document issued [in] 2008 by a Turkish authority stating that the applicant was expelled from his dormitory and a media report about the conflict at the university in which the applicant was involved and naming him as one of those sent to court.

24. The applicant submitted documents related to his application to a court in Turkey to change his name.[21] While the applicant claims that the basis on which he applied to the court to change his name and the evidence submitted to the Court in support of that application was fabricated, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to why the applicant changed his name in [2017]. The applicant submitted documents in support of the claim that after he left Turkey, Turkish authorities went to his family looking for him, including in relation to a cousin.[22]  The evidence in these documents, namely, a statutory declaration and a record of text messages, has been discussed above.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not believe that the applicant’s mother and witness 1 would, as these documents purport to claim, withhold from the applicant the important news about these visits from Turkish authorities.  Accordingly, the Tribunal does not give evidentiary weight to the contents of these documents.

    [21] Two documents purportedly issued by a court in Turkey, one containing a record of evidence advanced by or on behalf of the applicant in support of his application to change his name and documents related to the mental health of the applicant's brother in relation to performing military service (see folios 58 and 60 of the Tribunal file).

    [22] See folios 76 – 89 of the Tribunal file.

1. The applicant submitted documents purportedly corroborating his claims to have undertaken activities for the HDP in Turkey.[23]  These documents include photographs said to show the applicant at a HDP campaign meeting for the elections held in Turkey in 2015.  Also submitted was an undated letter from a branch of the HDP broadly stating that the applicant has been undertaking activities for that branch since 2015.  Finally, the applicant submitted a letter from a Kurdish organisation in Australia which contains the same general assertions about the applicant undertaking activities for this party.  In submissions of 8 May 2019, the representative submitted that the HDP was a large professional organisation and would not issue a letter in support of the applicant’s claims unless the party had verified that support.

   [23] See folios 61 and 53 of the Tribunal file.

2. The Tribunal has carefully considered those submissions and the contents of all of these documents but they do not outweigh the significant concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant may well have undertaken activities for the HDP in Turkey including in relation to the election held in 2015.  However, because the applicant is not a witness of truth and because the Tribunal finds that he has embellished and exaggerated his claims, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to the period over which the applicant undertook activities, the extent of those activities and the harm he suffered as a result.  Accordingly, the Tribunal does not give evidentiary weight to these documents.

3. Further, with respect to cousin 2 who worked for [Business 1] that was closed by Turkish authorities, the representative provided a media report issued [in] August 2016 related to the arrest of an employee of that [Business 1].[24] In addition, in submissions dated 8 May 2019, the representative stated that he was enclosing a court document relating to criminal proceedings in Turkey that listed this cousin as a defendant.  As discussed above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant may well have a cousin who worked for this [Business 1] which, as the media report asserts, has been of adverse interest to Turkish authorities. This cousin may well be of adverse interest, himself, to Turkish authorities. However, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence that Turkish authorities hold adverse interest in the applicant because of this cousin (or on any ground).[25]

   [24] See folio 56 of the Tribunal file.

   [25] Also submitted a family census registration document and his academic transcript from the University he attended. Those documents are not relevant to the grounds on which this review has been determined. All documents referred to in this decision are those for which English translations were provided.

4. With respect to the applicant’s change of name in 2017, in response to the hearing invitation, he advised that he wanted the Tribunal to telephone a lawyer in Turkey who would give evidence that he was detained unlawfully and changed his name for political reasons.  By letter dated 1 April 2019, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it would consider his request to take evidence by telephone from this witness, but, he was asked to submit a written statement from this person setting out the evidence that person would give. Subsequently, the Tribunal received from the applicant a brief letter from a lawyer in Turkey stating that the applicant came to her and asked for advice about making a complaint following his detention in 2013.  This person added that the applicant subsequently came to see her about changing his name.  She stated that she told the applicant that he could not change his name for political reasons, but, it would be possible to change his name based on reasons related to his family.

5. Towards the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal advised the applicant that, according to country information, Turkish authorities intercept telephone calls of the Turkish population which meant that if the Tribunal was to take evidence from the lawyer over the telephone, the privacy of that communication could be breached.[26] The Tribunal also advised the applicant that it was concerned about what evidence this person could give over the telephone beyond the contents of her letter.  The Tribunal advised the applicant and his representative that it would consider the request to telephone this person and, if the Tribunal believed that was necessary, the hearing would be reconvened for that purpose.

   [26] See, eg, ‘Citizens will be stripped naked by Turkey’s data law’, Computer Weekly, 5 April 2016, CX6A26A6E26615.

6. The Tribunal has decided not to reconvene the hearing to take evidence over the telephone from this person. The Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant was detained and maltreated in 2013 as he claimed so it saw no benefit in having this witness corroborate that by stating that he came to her to make a complaint about that.  The Tribunal is also willing to accept that if it had taken evidence from this witness over the telephone she would have repeated the claims made in her letter that the applicant consulted her for advice about changing his name for political reasons.  Even if that is so, her statement to that effect does not demonstrate that the account of events he has related about undertaking political activities and the harm he suffered in Turkey is true.  This person did not claim to have witnessed any of those events.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s account of those events is false.  The Tribunal would not be persuaded otherwise by evidence from this witness that the applicant consulted her about changing his name for political reasons.  Accordingly, the Tribunal does not give evidentiary weight to the statement in this letter to the effect that the applicant said that he wanted to change his name for political reasons.

   Assessment of whether the applicant holds a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J(1) of the Act

7. The Tribunal now turns to an assessment of the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Turkey.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Kurd and Alevi.  Country information indicates that the Alevi population is substantial, estimates ranging from 8 million to 30 million.[27] Although their prayer halls or Cemevis are not recognized as official places of worship, Alevis are generally able to conduct their religious ceremonies and celebrate their religious festivals without official interference.[28] They are generally able to worship freely.[29] DFAT assesses that they face a low risk of official and societal discrimination.[30]  Although the Alevi community suffered significant societal violence in the past, DFAT states that it is not aware of any instances of significant societal violence against them in recent years.[31] The Tribunal infers from this country information that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Turkey for being Alevi is remote.

   [27] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.20.

   [28] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.21 – 3.22.

   [29] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.25.

   [30] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.25.

   [31] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.24.  At 3.24 DFAT refers to isolated instances of low-level societal threats of violence, isolated attacks on Alevi tombs and shrines in 2017, cases of negative portrayal in the media, one attack on a funeral in 2017 and one instance of red marks being printed on 13 Alevi houses in 2017.  DFAT notes that Turkish authorities have intervened in those instances to investigate or provide protection.

8. The Kurdish population in Turkey is also significant, estimated at being 15 million, concentrated in the south-east of the country, but, with significant populations living in Istanbul and other major cities.[32] In terms of the expression of Kurdish culture and identity, the Kurdish language is commonly used throughout Turkey.[33] Past restrictions on minority identity have been gradually wound back and most now officially revoked.[34]  No laws prevent Kurds from obtaining public or private sector employment, from participating in public life or accessing government health and education services.[35] Kurds participate in all aspects of Turkish public life, including government, the civil service and the military.[36]

   [32] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.2.

   [33] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.4.

   [34] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.4.  Those past restrictions included bans on the public use of the Kurdish language, bans on Kurdish place names and a prohibition on public support for Kurdish political parties.

   [35] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.9.

   [36] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.9.

9. The response of the government to the resumption of conflict in the south-east of the country between the government and the PKK and its response to the attempted coup in 2016 have significantly affected the rights and freedoms of Kurds.[37]   On that basis, DFAT assesses that Kurdish civilians living in conflict affected areas in the south-east of the country face a high risk of violence and discrimination from both the government and the PKK.[38]  With respect to the state of emergency declared by the government in response to the coup, certain types of Kurdish individuals have been targeted, namely, journalists, politicians and political activists and civil society organisations accused of supporting the PKK.[39] 

   [37] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.5.

   [38] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.6.

   [39] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.7.

10. DFAT states that pro-Kurdish or political activists face a high risk of official discrimination in the form of arrest, monitoring, harassment and prosecution as well as a moderate risk of physical violence from both security forces and ultra nationalist supporters.[40]  Otherwise, many Kurds who are not politically active are integrated into Turkish society and live their lives in a normal fashion.[41]  Kurds in western Turkey do not face the same risk of violence as those in the south east of the country.[42]  They have far better access to government services than those residing in the south-east.[43] Overall, Kurds face official and societal discrimination but the extent and form of this depends on personal circumstance and geographical location.[44]

    [40] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.48.

    [41] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.8.

    [42] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.8.

    [43] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.9.

    [44] See DFAT Country Information Report Turkey 9 October 2018, 3.10.

11. Based on this country information, the Tribunal infers that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm because he is Kurdish is remote.  The applicant’s own experience indicates that he access to government services the applicant being able to undertake and complete not only school but tertiary education.  The applicant was able to find employment in Turkey and, for the reasons given above, his claims that he could not do so or was dismissed from employment due to his background, including his ethnicity, are disbelieved.  The applicant in the final year of his life in Turkey and the preceding ten years lived in cities the Tribunal regards as well away from the south east of the country.  The Tribunal considers the risk of him suffering serious harm in the form of violence because of his ethnicity is remote.  Although the applicant has advanced claims to have been politically active in Turkey, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence as to the scope and extent of this.

12. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was detained in 2008 and again in June 2013, but, those events are far too remote in time to demonstrate that there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm on return to Turkey.  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant was of adverse interest to Turkish authorities after that.  The Tribunal also has no credible evidence as to why the applicant left Turkey and why he does not want to go back there.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it has no credible evidence that this applicant will or will want to undertake political activities on return to Turkey.  Overall, the Tribunal infers that the risk of this applicant suffering serious harm because he is Kurdish, even combined with being Alevi, is remote.

13. The Tribunal discussed this country information with the applicant and put to him the inferences the Tribunal draws from that information.[45]  In response, the applicant said that he wanted to give a ‘long answer’. The Tribunal asked the applicant to simply address the questions put to him. In response, the applicant referred to the killing of Alevis in 1982; Cemevis not being formally registered, Turkish leaders not attending the funeral of an Alevi soldier and generally claiming that Alevis cannot get government work due to the Turkish President.  So far as discrimination against Alevis is concerned, the applicant’s assertions are in conflict with independent country information cited in this decision and which the Tribunal prefers.  The other matters mentioned by the applicant do not outweigh the up-to-date independent country information about the treatment of Alevis in Turkey presented above. 

    [45] In the decision to refuse the application, the delegate referred to country information on the same issues as those discussed in this decision referring to the source relied on in this decision.

14. Accordingly, the Tribunal remains of the view that the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm because he is Alevi and Kurdish is remote.  Because the applicant said that he wanted to give a long answer on these issues, the Tribunal advised him and the representative that it would grant them two weeks to provide written submissions containing any further comment the applicant or the representative wanted to make.  Both the applicant and the representative agreed with that course of action.  Following the hearing, as discussed above, by letter dated 21 May 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on or respond to certain information.  In that letter, the Tribunal confirmed that it would still await any submissions the applicant or his representative wished to make as discussed above.

15. The representative’s submissions of 27 May 2019 were focused on the information on which the applicant was invited to comment on or respond to in the Tribunal’s letter of 21 May 2019.  However, subsequently, on 4 June 2019, the representative provided further information, stating that this information demonstrated that Kurds and Alevis are being targeted by the authorities, ultranationalist and radical Sunni groups.  The Tribunal has carefully considered this information but it falls well short of demonstrating that there is a real chance that for being Kurdish and Alevi the applicant will suffer serious harm.

16. The information provided indicates risk for pro-Kurdish or political activists and the opposition of the Turkish president towards them and the HDP.  This is consistent with the country information discussed earlier in this decision, but, for the reasons given, the Tribunal has no credible evidence about the applicant’s political activities in Turkey.  The Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant will or will want to undertake political activities on return to Turkey.[46] 

    [46] This includes the use of social media for political purposes.

17. As for the treatment of Alevis, the information put forward refers to isolated instances of difficulty (the closure of an Alevi owned broadcaster, the arrests of some of its employees, the fact that Cemevis are not registered and Alevi school students having to undergo compulsory religious classes in Sunni Islam).  A further source reports on an incident in November 2018 in which some writing was painted on an Alevi house and in which broad assertions are made about other instances of this happening, but, without specifying the number of cases or when they occurred.  That information does not persuade the Tribunal to depart from the country information set out above which indicates that the risk of violence against Alevis is low and they are able to practice their faith. 

18. In addition to this information, by email dated 16 January 2019 the representative provided a report of the shooting of two men who told the perpetrator that they were Kurds.  According to this report, police arrested the offender.  This isolated incident does not demonstrate that there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm in Turkey because of his ethnicity.[47] Finally, the Tribunal notes that the applicant claims that he is atheist and became an atheist when he was at university.  As discussed above, the Tribunal has no credible evidence that the applicant was harmed by Turkish authorities following his last arrest and detention in 2013.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant has exaggerated and embellished his account of his experiences in Turkey.  The Tribunal has no credible evidence that, as an atheist, when he lived in Turkey the applicant suffered harm, beyond the two occasions on which he was arrested and detained which were not directly related to atheism.    

    [47] The representative made written submissions dated 8 May 2019 asserting that the DFAT report relied on in this decision did not accurately reflect the position for Alevi Kurds and atheists.  The representative did not provide country information in support of those broad assertions.

19. Even considered cumulatively, the risk of the applicant suffering serious harm in Turkey because he is Kurdish, Alevi, an atheist and was arrested and detained on two occasions in Turkey (the last being in 2013) is remote.  For all of the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm in Turkey.  For all of these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not hold a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s5J(1) of the Act.  For the same reasons that the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm, the Tribunal also finds that there is not a real risk that he will suffer significant harm in Turkey.  He therefore does not meet the complementary protection criterion.

    CONCLUSIONS

20. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

21. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

22. There is no suggestion that the 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, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

23. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Paul Millar
    Member