1915225 (Refugee)

1915225 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6826 (9 October 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1915225
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Turkey
MEMBER:James Silva
DATE:9 October 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 09 October 2019 at 11:14am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Turkey – political opinion – Gulen movement – terrorist organisation – religion – Sunni Muslim – fears persecution by Turkish authorities – fears harm from family – lack of evidence – inconsistent evidence – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 424A, 499, 501
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to sections 431 and 440 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

The applicant is a man [age] from Turkey. He first arrived in Australia [in] December 2008, as the holder of a [partner visa].He most recently returned [in] January 2013, as the holder of a [different] partner [visa]. He applied for a protection (class XA) visa on 7 May 2019. On 4 June 2019, the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused the application pursuant to s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
This is an application for review of that decision.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant. This occurs if the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, if he is entitled to complementary protection. A summary of the relevant law and extracts from the Act are at the attachment to this decision.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Protection claims
The applicant is a Turkish national who claims to be an Alevi Kurd, and more recently a practicing Sunni Muslim. He claims to fear persecution or significant harm at the hands of the Turkish authorities, due to his membership of the Gulen movement (actual and perceived).[1] He linked this with his having found emergency accommodation in 2016, provided by a Gulenist charity. More recently, he has suggested that he was involved with the movement’s religious and charitable activities in Australia from about 2009 or 2010, through his wife’s family. The applicant claims that his former de facto partner informed the Turkish authorities about his involvement during a visit to Turkey in 2017.
He also claims to fear harm from his own family, in part because they are angered by his conversion to Sunni Islam, and also because they will want to ‘clear their names’ (that is, distance themselves from any association with a known or suspected Gulenist).
Background
The applicant is a [man] from [Town 1], Aydιn Province, Turkey. He claims to be of Kurdish ethnicity, and a speaker of Turkish, Kurdish and some English. (During the course of the review, the applicant and his representative highlighted that he has only limited English.) The applicant claims to have been brought up as an Alevi, but to have converted to Sunni Islam after his marriage.
The applicant attended primary school for five years. He told the Tribunal that he had various jobs. After school, he worked as a [Occupation 1] for two years. He then worked in restaurants up to early [year], when he did 18 months of compulsory military service. After this, he worked in a [workplace] in Aydin. On his application form, the applicant wrote that he also had periods of unemployment, during which his family supported him. At hearing, he nonetheless stressed that he had always been independent (and by implication, self-sufficient).
The applicant’s relationships in Australia form essential backdrop to his protection claims.
§ The applicant married an Australian citizen, a woman originally from Ankara. He told the Tribunal that they met while she was on holidays in Turkey. They were formally married in Ankara, and the wedding reception was held later in Aydιn, in the presence of both families. The applicant obtained a partner (subclass [specified]) visa, and travelled to Australia in December 2008. At hearing, the applicant said that the couple started experiencing problems about three months after his arrival. Early on, his wife took out an apprehended violence order (AVO) against the applicant, but the couple got together again in 2009. The applicant said that the relationship continued until 2013 or 2014. He spoke of various interpersonal, health and financial issues that affected the couple, which are not relevant to this decision. The couple separated (amicably, he suggested) in 2014, and remain legally married.
§ The applicant told the Tribunal that he met his most recent partner in 2014. He described her as his second wife, or ‘Islamic wife’. For the purpose of this decision, the Tribunal uses the term ‘former de facto [partner]’. He said that he helped his former de facto financially and emotionally, but the relationship soured. He got along well with her mother in Turkey (his de facto mother-in-law), and stays in touch with her. The applicant’s former de facto also had an AVO issued against him. His breaches of the order resulted in his conviction and imprisonment. The couple are no longer in contact with each other. The applicant alleged that she has now informed the Turkish authorities about his religious/political activities in Australia.
The applicant’s parents and his [Sibling 1] were born in [Town 2], Erzincan Province. The applicant and [his other siblings] were born in [Town 1], in southwestern Turkey. The applicant claims to have minimal contact with his family since 2014, when he told them that he had married a Sunni Muslim woman who wears the hijab. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had brief contact with his family around this time, as his mother had been ill and needed money. Meanwhile, his main contact is with his [Sibling 2]. He last spoke to [Sibling 2] in 2018, after learning about their grandmother’s death. The applicant said he was devastated to learn about her death, as she had more or less raised the children while their parents were busy working.
The applicant claims to have worked as a self-employed [Occupation 2] in [City 1] from December 2008 to March 2017; friends in Australia helped him financially after that.
The applicant is currently in [a detention centre].
Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following relevant material:
§ Protection visa application form filed online, on 7 May 2019.
§ The delegate’s protection visa assessment record (‘delegate’s decision record’) of 4 June 2019.
§ The Department file includes a number of reports from the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis (AUSTRAC), concerning financial transfers between the applicant and persons in Turkey. The delegate drew on these in the decision record.
§ The delegate’s protection visa assessment record (‘delegate’s decision record’) of 4 June 2019.
§ Review application form, attached to which are copies of the delegate’s decision record and the letter notifying him of the decision.
§ The Tribunal received a pre-hearing submission dated 5 August 2019, which restates the applicant’s protection claims, addresses concerns in the delegate’s decision record, and attaches a range of country information.
§ In light of the applicant’s and his representative’s references to mental health concerns, the Tribunal obtained a copy of a Psychological Assessment Report from [Organisation 1], dated 27 June 2018; and a copy of [Organisation 2][2] clinical records relating to the applicant, during his period in immigration detention. The Tribunal forwarded the psychological assessment report in full to the applicant, and drew on relevant parts of the [Organisation 2] records, insofar as they were relevant to the assessment of his protection claims.
§ On 14 August 2019, the Tribunal received a submission addressing several issues that arose at the first hearing session, and several supporting documents: (a) a copy of a police constable’s visiting card, together with an incident number for his report of a lost passport; (b) copies of correspondence between the representative and the Turkish Consulate-General, [dated] August 2019; (c) a letter from a travel Agent in [Suburb 1], with printouts of the applicant’s flight itineraries for his travel to Turkey in 2012/2013 (namely his original itinerary, and the rescheduled one); and (d) a copy of[official] correspondence addressed to him at premises [at Address 1], [Suburb 1], on 16 December 2016.
§ The Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.424A on 14 August 2019, inviting his comments/responses in writing to potentially adverse information.
§ On 26 August 2019, the Tribunal received a post-hearing submission which addressed the issues in the s.424A issues and provided additional material, including a further eight statutory declarations in support of the applicant’s protection visa application.
The Tribunal also has before it documents from Department file [specified], relating to the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s [third visa], under s.501(3A), due to his criminal record. The Tribunal drew on some of the documents from this file, including his stated reasons for seeking the revocation of the cancellation and the content of supporting letters that he submitted.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments, at a hearing held on 8 August 2019 and 16 August 2019. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of (two different) interpreters in the Turkish and English languages.
Receiving country
The applicant claims to be a national of Turkey. He has held a Turkish passport, and presented correspondence from the Turkish authorities acknowledging his nationality. Furthermore, he speaks Turkish and Kurdish, and has shown his familiarity that that country and its culture. There is no suggestion that he has the nationality of any other country.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a national of Turkey, and assesses his protection claims against Turkey as the receiving country.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS
Credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence
The Tribunal has taken into account the AAT’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility both in the conduct of the hearing and in evaluating the applicant’s evidence as a whole.
The applicant’s oral evidence at hearing was often unfocused and digressive, and it was difficult to elicit direct, unambiguous responses to the Tribunal’s questions. Much of his evidence appeared uncertain, changeable and/or inconsistent, even during the course of the hearing.
The applicant and his representative invited the Tribunal to take various factors into account in its assessment; and others became apparent during the review.
§ The submission of 5 August 2019 requests the Tribunal to take into account the applicant’s psychological state, ‘as a person who has been sexually assaulted whilst imprisoned and abused whilst in custody and in detention, and [to] treat what may appear as inconsistencies [as] factors related to his torn chain of thought.’
§ The psychological assessment report of 8 July 2019 referred to his failed marriage and de facto relationship in Australia; his conviction for breach of an AVO, and subsequent imprisonment; his interpersonal conflict and social isolation in immigration detention; and his concerns about his migration status. It noted his feelings of sadness and worry, attributable mainly to these events in Australia.
The Tribunal’s own observations are broadly consistent with these reports, and also suggest other factors. First, the Tribunal takes into account that the applicant appeared unfamiliar with the Tribunal setting, and somewhat nervous. He does not appear to have strong presentational skills, reflected in part in his long, digressive statements. Second, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s uncertain migration status, especially the prospect of returning to Turkey after more than ten years in Australia, weigh heavily on his mind.
The applicant and his representative suggested that his opaque, changeable evidence was at least in part attributable to excessive caution. They linked this with the alleged assault(s) in detention, and implicitly also with the secretive nature of the Gulen movement with which he claims to have been involved in Australia. The Tribunal sensed from the applicant’s accounts of his dealings with his family, his former partners and others, and his comments about the interpreter at the first hearing session, that he is somewhat suspicious and cautious. Irrespective of the exact cause of these tensions, they do in the Tribunal’s view raise broad questions about his reliability as an objective narrator.
Against this backdrop, the Tribunal explored the extent to which the applicant was able to support his claims with corroborative materials, such as online exchanges or photographs, or present witnesses. The applicant was for the main part guarded about such enquiries, variously explaining that he had lost his mobile telephone, closed his social media accounts and lost contact with people. The Tribunal offered to consider any relevant material, but did not press further.
Overall, and even after making allowance for the factors mentioned above, the Tribunal has significant concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence. It is concerned that he has exaggerated and misconstrued past events; that he has tailored his evidence to address perceived weaknesses in his claims; and that some of his statements are untruthful.
Despite these broad concerns, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant lacked competency to present his case. He clearly understood the nature of the proceedings, and, together with his representative, was given a meaningful opportunity to give evidence at two hearing sessions and in correspondence.
The Gulen Movement: factors relevant to assessing credibility
The applicant and his representative also stressed that, in assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claims, and his conduct, the Tribunal should take into account the nature of the Gulen Movement. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade[3] and other sources mention the following features:
§ The movement has ‘no formal structure, central hierarchy nor visible evidence of membership’. Its critics voice concerns about its ‘highly secretive and undemocratic nature’.
§ The Turkish government accuses the Gulen movement of having orchestrated the 2016 attempted coup, and cracked down on alleged supporters of the Gulen movement. The authorities have not defined what qualifies as support for the movement, but it has extended to those using the Asya Bank (allegedly linked to the Gulen movement) or the encrypted Bylock messaging system.
§ The Turkish authorities’ pursuit of Gulenists extends worldwide,[4] and reputedly includes the collection by diplomats of information about Gulenists in Australia.[5]
The Tribunal takes into account, in the assessment below, the somewhat amorphous nature of the Gulen movement; the severity of the Turkish government’s crackdown, at home and abroad; and the opacity of the Turkish authorities’ actions. It appreciates that these factors could affect the applicant’s ability to provide supporting evidence, or indeed to gauge what if any adverse interest the Turkish authorities may have in him.
Fears relating to Turkey
In March 2018, the applicant received a notice of intention to cancel his [third] visa[6] (‘Notice’) and from this time, he faced the prospect of deportation. As noted in the decision record, the applicant wrote on 18 April 2018, in response to the Notice, that he would ‘face an assortment of difficulties in providing my basic means of living..’, although the Tribunal notes that he attributed these problems to ‘cruel and ruthless tribal feuds’, and added that he has ‘pending political charges which could result in [his] imprisonment’ (he did not elaborate on these, or suggest at any time later that there are ‘pending charges’ of any kind).
The written comments/responses to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter point out that the applicant has very poor English, and relied on an Iranian detainee to prepare his response to the Notice of 18 April 2018. Moreover, he had no legal representation at the time. Even so, the Tribunal notes that the focus of the applicant’s concerns, as stated, were mainly on economic concerns, with only passing mention of tribal or political issues.
The Tribunal has found no material prior to May 2019 that directly links to the applicant’s current protection claims. As the Tribunal also noted in its s.424A letter, he submitted numerous statements from friends in support of his request for revocation of the cancellation of his [third] visa. None of these mentioned any fears about the applicant’s safety if he returned to Turkey. Similarly, the notes from his consultations with [Organisation 2][7] during 2018 and 2019, which record his comments and preoccupations at the time, include reference to his personal and family circumstances in Australia and Turkey. The first mention of him having voiced any concerns for his safety in Turkey is found in a note from March 2019.[8] In April 2019, he is reported to have said that his family is ‘part of the minority in Turkey (Kurdish) [who] were persecuted and jailed often, and given no rights to work, etc.,’[9] suggesting that he may have been intending to present protection claims as a Kurd or Alevi Kurd. (The applicant did not in fact present any protection claims based on his ethnicity, although he based some claims on his family’s Alevi faith.) And it was only in May 2019, around the time of lodging his protection visa application, that he mentioned his ‘conversion’ to a different sect of Islam, and his family’s disapproval of it. Again, there was no record of him having spoken of or implied any links with the Gulen movement.
The applicant and his representative cautioned the Tribunal about drawing adverse inferences from these notes, given that the medical consultations were conducted without an interpreter, and were in the context of discussing his general welfare. The Tribunal agrees that it would be unsafe to draw firm conclusions from such notes, or from the contents of the letters of support (that is, their failure to voice concerns about the applicant’s safety in Turkey). However, the recorded comments address his personal and family circumstances, and are cogent. The letters were clearly prepared in order to help avoid the applicant’s deportation. The Tribunal considers that the information in the clinical notes and letters is relevant, and it places some, albeit limited, weight on them in the assessment below. Overall, they add to its doubts about the credibility of the applicant’s current claims, and his need for protection.
Concerns about interpreter at the hearing on 8 August 2019
At the second hearing session, the applicant voiced concerns about the interpreter who assisted at the first hearing session on 8 August 2019. (A different interpreter assisted at the second session.) He said that she is a family friend of his former de facto partner (the woman who he claims informed the Turkish authorities about his involvement with the Gulen movement), and he is worried that she (the interpreter) will not observe the confidentiality of the information that he provided at the first hearing session.
§ The applicant said that he had not raised any concerns at the first hearing session, because he only realised afterwards that they had met previously. Rather, he had focused his attention on the member. He added that the interpreter’s hair had been dyed blonde when they first met. He made the connection only when the same interpreter appeared at a psychological consultation.
§ The applicant recalled seeing the interpreter at a wedding reception that he and his former de facto partner had attended, at the home of one of his de facto’s relatives.
§ The Tribunal reminded the applicant of the interpreter’s professional obligations, and asked if he had any reasons to believe she would breach these. During the exchange, he said he fears that she will gossip and reveal the contents of his sensitive claims to the Turkish authorities. He later clarified that she might tell his former de facto, who had already contacted the Turkish authorities. He reiterated that he has no trust in her (again, blurring the distinction between his former de facto, and the interpreter).

The submission of 21 August 2019 clarified that the interpreter in question had declined to interpret during a psychological consultation with the applicant, citing a conflict of interest. She ‘expressly told the psychological consultant about her friendship with [the applicant’s] ex-wife’. As a consequence, the consultation was put on hold pending the availability of another interpreter. While this statement is not entirely clear, it appears that the applicant was referring to a counselling session after the first hearing session (perhaps pursuant to the recommendation in the [Organisation 2] report), and that the interpreter explained, in the applicant’s presence, that she could not provide professional services.
The Tribunal considers it surprising that neither the applicant nor the interpreter recognised each other at the first session, yet one (or perhaps both of them) recalled have met the other following the hearing. In any event, by the applicant’s own account, the interpreter did the right thing by declaring a potential conflict of interest, and declining to interpret for him in the future. This suggests that she is professional and complies with the interpreters’ code of ethics, and will not disclose to his former de facto, or others, the contents of his protection visa or other sensitive discussions.
The applicant did not claim or suggest that the interpreter at the first session made interpreting errors, or that her presence adversely affected his ability to give evidence. On the contrary, as noted above, he claims to have only become aware of her links to his former de facto afterwards. The Tribunal notes, however, that two implied claims arise from the applicant’s concerns about the interpreter: (a) whether they support his claim that his former de facto informed the Turkish authorities about his claimed involvement with the Gulen movement, and (b) whether the interpreter’s future actions may give rise to or add to the applicant’s need for protection.
The applicant’s adherence to Sunni Islam
The applicant claims to be of Kurdish ethnicity and the Alevi faith, but to have ‘converted’ to Sunni Islam, and to be a devout practitioner. The Tribunal accepts, taking into account the applicant’s familiarity with the Kurdish language and his family’s place of origin (Erzincan province, in Eastern Anatolia) that he is of Kurdish ethnicity and an Alevi, at least nominally.
The applicant claims to have ‘converted’ to Sunni Islam, and to be a devout practitioner who prays five times a day. The Tribunal found supporting evidence for this in the psychological assessment report, which refers to his religious practices, and the applicant’s request at the hearing for a break to perform prayers. Country information indicates that an overwhelming majority of Turkish citizens are Muslims, with most (75-80 per cent) being Sunni.[10] Much less clear is when the applicant adopted Sunni Muslim practices in Australia, and whether this is linked to his estranged wife and/or his former de facto partner.
Conflict with family
The applicant wrote in his protection visa application that he had conflict with his family during his return trip to Turkey (in December 2012 – January 2013), over his devout practice as a Sunni Muslim.
The trigger for his family’s anger: The applicant claimed that his family did not like his more devout Sunni religious observance (hence, his abandonment of Alevi traditions). The Tribunal found it difficult to ascertain whether this involved an actual ‘conversion’ to Sunni Islam; whether it was linked with the relationship with either his legal wife or his former de facto partner; and when the conflict arose.
§ In his original application, the applicant wrote that he married a religious Sunni woman; that he converted to Sunni Islam after migrating to Australia; and that he started to observe its practices strictly. In a similar vein, he told the delegate that his family targeted him after they learned that he was involved with a Sunni woman. This caused the conflict with his family on his return to Turkey (in 2012/2013).
§ At hearing, the applicant’s account as to how his former partners’ religious identities influenced him, and caused conflict with his family, was less clear:
-   The applicant said that his legal wife is a Sunni Muslim; that the two families met at the couple’s wedding reception in Aydιn, and that his family did not object to the relationship because his wife was not a strict Muslim and did not wear a veil. Indeed, he went on to say that his [Sibling 2] also recently married a Sunni woman who does not wear the veil, and this does not cause any problems.
-   He suggested, rather, that it was his former de facto partner’s (his ‘Islamic wife’) religious practice (such as wearing the hijab) and his increasingly devout practice that caused friction with his family. However, he also told the Tribunal that their relationship did not start until mid-2013 or 2014, hence after he returned from Turkey (in early 2013). It follows that her faith and any influence on him cannot have been the trigger for his family’s antagonism during his last visit to Turkey.
§ This leaves the applicant’s evidence about when he became a more devout Muslim, and whether either of his former partners’ religious practice or appearance added to the friction with his family, unclear.
§ The Tribunal proceeds on the basis that it is plausible, though far from certain, that the applicant adopted Sunni Muslim practices after marrying in 2008; that he had already become an observant Sunni by the time of his return to Turkey in late 2012; and that he practiced more devoutly during his relationship with his former de facto partner (his ‘Islamic wife’), who is conservative.
His family’s reaction: The applicant wrote in his protection visa application that, during his return visit in 2012/2013, his immediate family severely beat him; they exerted ‘severe psychological pressure’ on him to return to the Alevi faith; and they tried to prevent his return to Australia. It was only with the help of his [Sibling 2] that he managed to ‘escape’ from Turkey.
As noted in the delegate’s decision, the applicant said at the Department interview that his family locked him up after they learned that he had become involved with a Sunni woman. He escaped after his mother opened a door for him to go to the bathroom. He went to a hotel where he stayed for two days, while bringing forward his return to Australia. He could not remember the name of the hotel.
At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant said that during his visit, his family objected to him praying five times a day. Once, while he was praying, his father slapped him and his [sibling] made ‘sexual contact from behind’, which the applicant later clarified to mean that he made a rude gesture. After prompting from the Tribunal, he added that they tried to stop him from returning to Australia. He said no one physically restrained him, but his father hid his passport, and he managed to flee to a hotel only after his [sibling] and mother retrieved his passport and luggage for him. The applicant now recalled the name of the hotel and, following the hearing, provided copies of the original and revised flight bookings.
As noted in the delegate’s decision record, the applicant claimed that he had originally planned to visit Turkey for several months from December 2012, but he returned after only ‘about three weeks’. The applicant submitted to the Tribunal a letter dated 13 August 2019 from a travel agent in [Suburb 1],[11] with attached flight itineraries. These show the following:
§ [In] December 2012, he bought a return ticket to Turkey, for travel from [December] 2012 to [February] 2013.
§ [In] December 2012, while in Turkey, he changed the return date to [January] 2013.
A comparison of the applicant’s written statement, his evidence at the Department interview and his statements during the course of this review suggests that he has exaggerated and misconstrued what happened during this return visit. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant travelled to Turkey at short notice, and that he brought forward his return trip. As shown in the travel itineraries, he changed his itinerary after two weeks, and stayed another three weeks before returning to Australia. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept at face value – that is, without at least considering the applicant’s relationship with his family following his return to Australia – that he ‘fled’ Turkey, in response to any threats or actual violence from his family.
Estrangement from his family: The applicant claims that his family ostracised him after the 2012/2013 visit to Turkey, again because of his devout Sunni practice (and his abandonment of Alevism); and/or his relationship with a Sunni woman, in particular, a ‘veiled’ or devout woman. He claims to have had only very limited contact with his family from that time.
The applicant’s financial transfers to his family strongly suggest that he has some ongoing relationship with them.
§ As noted in the delegate’s decision record, he sent money to his father at least in 2013 and 2014, after the alleged conflict. In response, he said that he had sent money for his sick mother, and had forgotten to mention that.
§ As also noted in the decision record, when requesting the revocation of his permanent visa cancellation, the applicant stated that his family would be devastated by the visa cancellation as he had been ‘sending a part of [his] income to [his] family in Turkey and [the visa cancellation] will result in financial difficulty for them as they are dependent on [his] income.’
The applicant’s comments to medical staff during 2018 and 2019 further indicate that he was in contact with family members,[12] and their relationship was not merely one of him sending money from time to time. The records from [Organisation 2] during 2018 indicate that he had an ongoing relationship with his family in Turkey, and at least made efforts to keep in regular contact.[13] On some occasions[14], he said he had little contact with them because of the expense of making calls to Turkey, and that he found it difficult to send them money because of lawyers’ costs.[15] He also noted that his family was upset because he went to prison (in mid-2017).[16] Taken as a whole, these records indicate that his relationship with his family was intact, although there were practical (mainly financial) reasons why he could not contact them as often as he liked, and they were understandably upset about his conviction. They do not support the applicant’s claim that his family had ostracized him over his religious beliefs and practices, such as his perceived abandonment of the Alevi faith or his observance of Sunni Muslim prayer rituals.
As noted above, the Tribunal the applicant and his representative cautioned in their response to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter about drawing firm conclusions from notes of discussions held without an interpreter. However, the Tribunal considers that the issue of family contact is very basic. The notes are cogent and broadly consistent over time. Although he variously described his contact with them in mid-2018 as regular and infrequent, the Tribunal finds that he had ongoing relations with his family, subject only to practical considerations such as the cost of telephone calls.
Taking all of the above evidence into account, the Tribunal finds that the applicant returned to Turkey in December 2012, for reasons unrelated to his protection claims (the quick departure suggests that it was a family health emergency or similar contingency). The Tribunal accepts that his family may have disapproved of the applicant’s stricter religious observance. However, it does not accept that this involved any rejection of his marriage to his first wife (as the family attended the wedding and met her family), or of his relationship with his former de facto partner (as that happened after the applicant’s return to Australia). The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s family assaulted him, put him under ‘severe psychological pressure’, tried to prevent his return to Australia, or subsequently ostracised him. The Tribunal accepts that his family were disappointed at the applicant’s imprisonment in Australia, but the applicant did not claim, and there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest, that they have rejected him for that reason.
Practice of Sunni Islam
As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant became a practising Sunni Muslim following his marriage to his legal wife, and that he became more devout over time.
Association with the Gulen movement
Accommodation [at Address 1]
The applicant’s original statement of claims states: ‘[…] upon separation from his last de facto partner, the applicant became very close with the Hizmet Movements [sic] and lived in the same house with them for a lengthy period’. Also according to his protection visa application, he lived in a house [at Address 1], from February 2016 until May 2017.
By way of background, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) most recent country information report on Turkey[17] describes the Gulen movement in the following terms:
3.35 The Gulen movement began as a religious movement in Turkey in the 1960s, based on the sermons of Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, a onetime radical Islamist preacher, now in exile in the United States. The movement, also known as ‘Cemaat’ (‘community’) or Hizmet (‘service’), transformed over the decades into a civil society movement involving religious, educational and social organisations. Critics of the movement, however, have long expressed concerns about the movement’s highly secretive and undemocratic nature.
3.36 The Gulen movement has no formal structure, central hierarchy nor visible evidence of membership. The movement reportedly has an inner circle of activists and an outer circle of those who support Gulen’s teachings and the movement’s ideals, often graduates of Gulen’s education programs. The Gulen movement has a large international presence, with supporters in 140 countries worldwide, including Australia. It ran a newswire and had several publications and television channels with a wide audience. Within Turkey, the movement’s activities have centred on autonomous branches, which have had their own dialogue associations and schools. The movement has never pushed for involvement in politics as an organisation, nor run candidates for parliament under its own banner. Prior to the July 2016 attempted coup, international observers estimated that Gulenists in Turkey numbered in the millions.
The Tribunal drew on a range of country information about the Gulen movement in Australia in its discussions with the applicant, including materials he had submitted. Relevantly, this information indicates that the Turkish-Australian community has been ‘greatly divided by the Erdogan-Gulen rift’. A March 2017 report in the Saturday Paper gives a snapshot of the dynamics affecting Gulen supporters in Australia, and in particular Turkish asylum seekers[18]:
They come to a Turkish–Australian community greatly divided by the Erdoğan–Gülen rift. Hizmet groups such as Affinity in Sydney and the Australian Intercultural Society in Melbourne run 16 schools attended by about 5000 students. They pursue interfaith activities such as fast-breaking dinners during Ramadan, where federal and state politicians, police commissioners, priests and rabbis are regaled with dreamy Sufi music and whirling dervishes.
The two refugee families avoid Sydneys main Turkish community at Auburn, where the large Gallipoli Mosque is located, instead staying close to the Hizmet school, Amity College, at Prestons. “Any time we meet someone new, a Turkish member of the public, there’s a question mark,” Asli said. “We never say we arrived from Turkey recently, or were a teacher at a Hizmet institution.”
The applicant told the Tribunal that he moved into the [Address 1] house after leaving his former de facto. He was ‘desperate’ to find accommodation. At the time, there were four Turkish residents and others from other countries in the accommodation.
As the Tribunal noted at hearing, it has found the name of a small charity, [Charity 1], registered at [Address 1].[19] Its statement of activities reads: [Details deleted] The charity states that it helps, among others [the financially disadvantaged], [migrants, and asylum seekers] and [homeless people].
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant lived in the [Address 1] house for about a year (he has variously described it as being somewhere between 7 and 14 months), and, based on the limited available material, accepts as plausible that a charity linked with the Gulen movement operates the premises. The primary application indicates that he moved there in about February 2016, and that it was in response to the breakdown of his de facto relationship and the imposition of an AVO. This, together with the applicant’s statement that he was ‘desperate’ at the time, indicates that he moved into the house as he needed emergency accommodation. The applicant has not claimed, and there is no persuasive evidence to suggest, that the Gulen movement provides charity only to supporters.
Involvement with the Gulen movement
From 2016: activities [at Address 1] : As noted above, the applicant’s original statement of claims intimates that he first became involved with the Gulen movement through the contacts in the [Address 1] house, and/or the activities that took place there.
He gave some insights into his activities in the [Address 1] house, at the Department interview and at the Tribunal hearing.
§ During this period, he used to make modest donations, of about [amount] per month.
§ The applicant named some people who had lived there, but said that he has lost his mobile telephone and could not provide their details. In this context, he mentioned two persons, ‘[Mr A]’ and ‘[Mr B]’, although his later evidence suggested that these were friends, and not residents in the house or members of the Hizmet movement.
§ As for evidence of his participation in religious or other activities in that house, the applicant told the Tribunal that there are no photographs, and there were no meetings or celebrations. He said that the residents were all ‘working people’ (such as ‘[Mr A]’ and ‘[Mr B]’), and they just went to their rooms.
Claimed involvement from 2009/2010: More recently, particularly at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant has claimed that his involvement with the Gulenists goes all the way back to 2009, shortly after his arrival in Australia. At hearing, he said that family friends of his ‘wife’ (an apparent reference to his legal wife) were Gulenists, and he started participating in their activities, such as prayers, charity work and meetings. He also used to make donations. This grew over time. He named some of these individuals, including a teacher named [Mr C], and some family friends (friends of his legal wife). The applicant advised that he had contacted [Mr C], asking him to support him with his application, but [Mr C] had declined to do so, as he was busy and preparing to travel overseas. The applicant did not provide details of his legal wife’s other friends, and the Tribunal did not press the matter.
The applicant said that he did not have any corroborating evidence of his activities from this time. He agreed with the Tribunal’s observation that the Turkish authorities had not clamped down on the Gulen movement at that stage, but he commented that it was not usual to keep receipts for religious donations or otherwise record their activities in any way.
§ During the course of the hearing, the applicant described other activities that he claimed to have participated in. Some of these appeared to relate to the Muslim community generally, such as his involvement with [Mosque 1][Suburb 1], whereas he also mentioned some locations such as [Location 1], which are known centres for Gulenist activities.
§ The applicant said that from about 2014, he went to religious discussions at [Location 1]. He described his activities there in broad terms (and somewhat repetitively), such as reading the Koran, religious discussions and collecting donations, and again said that he did not have evidence to support these activities. The Tribunal has found reference to [Location 1] as one of several [20] Gulenist groups in [City 1].

The applicant claimed in his original statement that he also subscribed to a Gulenist newspaper and was part of the FETÖ group; and he told the Tribunal that he used to share material on social media, namely [Social Media 1]. The Tribunal explored these other activities with the applicant. He was unable to provide much by way of detail. In relation to [Social Media 1], he said that he had several accounts in different names, and used to share various (pro-Gulenist) posts, but decided to delete his accounts because he feared his former de facto partner would use them against him. He gave the name of one of his accounts and the associated email address, and offered to give the Tribunal the password. The Tribunal declined, but undertook to consider any material that the applicant wished to provide, such as screenshots from his or any friends’ accounts. He recalled subscribing to one group, [specified], and said that members of the group discussed the Koran and publications by Fetullah Gulen. Asked whether any of his friends might have records showing the applicant’s activities on such websites, the applicant replied vaguely that he used to know people in the cemaat (religious community), but they are all scattered now.
The Tribunal has significant concerns about the applicant’s claimed involvement with the Gulen movement.
First, he has provided inconsistent evidence as to whether he began associating with the Gulen movement after the break-up of his de facto relationship (hence, in around 2016), as originally claimed; or much earlier, in about 2009/2010.
Second, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has tried to blur the distinction between his involvement with Sunni Muslims in [City 1], and those groups with Gulenist links; and that he has mainly drawn on general knowledge about the Gulenist groups in [City 1], rather than personal experience.
Third, the lack of corroborative evidence from Gulenist supporters in [City 1] or other sources, and the applicant’s apparent failure to seek such support, reinforces the Tribunal’s doubts about the applicant’s claimed association with the movement. Although the applicant provided details of one person, [Mr C], whom he described as a religious teacher, it appears that this person was not available to assist the applicant, and the Tribunal has no further details or corroborative evidence to show that this person was involved with the Gulenists. In relation to the lack of corroborative evidence, the representative observed that Gulenists might be afraid of giving evidence to support the applicant, given that the Turkish authorities have declared it a terrorist organisation (and despite the fact that the Australian authorities have not done so). The Tribunal acknowledges that, in these circumstances, it would be unwise to draw firm adverse conclusions from the fact that the applicant has been unable to present Gulenists to confirm his participation in various activities, particularly given his periods of criminal and immigration detention. However, given the extent of its other concerns, it is of the view that the lack of supporting evidence is a relevant additional factor.
Other community knowledge of the applicant’s Gulenist links
At the Department interview and the first Tribunal hearing session, the applicant emphasised the secretive nature of the Gulen movement. Also, the people he met in the [Address 1] house did not really mix, and as a consequence, he did not know and could not name them. In the Tribunal’s view, this strongly suggests that the applicant treated the [Address 1] address as emergency accommodation, and he was not involved in any broader religious or communal activities.
The Tribunal alerted the applicant that he had presented a number of letters from members of the Turkish community in [City 1], in support of his request for the revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation under s.501. To varying degrees, these people indicated that they had known the applicant for periods of between two and nine years. They clearly realised he faced the prospect of deportation if his visa remained cancelled. The Tribunal enquired whether the applicant thought any of these persons would be in a position to confirm by telephone his involvement with the Gulen movement. The applicant said that two of the authors, ‘[Mr A]’ and ‘[Mr B]’ (for the purpose of this decision) are Australian citizens, and know of his involvement with the movement. He implied that they used to give him a lift sometimes, so that he could attend Gulenist events. He said that the others know nothing of his links. Again, he emphasised the secrecy that he and other Gulenists had to observe. Asked whether the Tribunal could contact [Mr A] or [Mr B] (or others) to confirm his involvement, the applicant replied that he keeps his involvement private. He appeared to retreat from his earlier statement that these men knew of his links, and the Tribunal did not press the matter.
As the Tribunal put to the applicant in a letter under s.424A, even at a time when the applicant’s possible deportation was in prospect, none of the persons who wrote character references suggested any knowledge of his claimed association with the Gulen movement, or any fears for his safety in Turkey.
At the resumed hearing session, the applicant changed his evidence and said that many of these men in fact knew of his Gulenist links. He explained that he did not disclose this to the Tribunal earlier because he did not have the men’s permission to reveal their names. In response to the Tribunal’s observation that his inconsistent evidence could lead it to disbelieve his later statements, the applicant explained that after his experiences in prison, he is excessively cautious about exposing others to risk.
In a post-hearing submission, the applicant provided eight statutory declarations from men of Turkish origin, resident in [City 1], claiming to be his long-term friends. Each provided a statement and a photocopy of a [State 1] driver licence, but no further identification (such as evidence of citizenship or visa status). There is some overlap between the authors of these statutory declarations and those provided in relation to the earlier visa cancellation:
§ The applicant did not provide statutory declarations from ‘[Mr A]’ or ‘[Mr B]’, the two men whom he suggested at the first hearing session knew something of his Gulenist links (although, as noted above, he seemed to modify that later).
§ Four of the statements are from men who had provided earlier statutory declarations in relation to the applicant’s visa cancellation. Another four are from men who did not provide earlier statements.
The letters attest to various aspects of his claims. The Tribunal refers to the authors by the initials of their names, for ease of reference.
§ Some of them were aware of his involvement with the Gulen movement, including his attendance at lectures ([Mr D, Mr E, Mr F, Mr G, Mr H, Mr I]), and his charity work ([Mr J, Mr H, Mr I]), such as collecting money for the funeral of a Gulen supporter in Australia ([Mr F]). One person regularly saw the applicant [at Address 1], ([Mr I]).
§ The applicant ‘often spoke about the contents of the lectures’. ([Mr D]).
§ The applicant asked some of the authors to attend the lectures. Some declined ([Mr D, Mr G, Mr H]). Others accepted, but cut off ties after the Turkish authorities declared it a terrorist organisation ([Mr K, Mr I])
§ The applicant disagreed with one of the authors on political issues, namely that the Gulen movement was responsible for the attempted military coup in 2016. ([Mr D]).
§ The applicant refused to follow advice to sever his links with the Gulen movement. ([Mr D, Mr F])
§ One author saw the applicant reading Islamic religious texts, and books written by Fethullah Gulen. ([Mr J]).
§ One person (in [Suburb 1]) wrote that the applicant initially stayed with him after the break-up in early 2016, but he then moved to the Gulen house in [Address 1] so he could be around ‘likeminded people’.
§ After July 2016, the applicant closed multiple [Social Media 1] accounts and opened new ones, stating that he feared the Turkish authorities would pursue him. He also changed his telephone number on several occasions (implicitly, for similar reasons). ([Mr J, Mr F, Mr H])
§ One author is ‘aware that [the applicant] has come to the attention of the Turkish authorities’. ([Mr E])
The applicant’s representative wrote that five further people came to his office with a view to providing statutory declarations, but they changed their mind and decided not to, fearing that the Turkish authorities would impute that they are associated with the Gulen movement.
In addition to its overall adverse view of the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal has significant concerns about the contents of these letters and of the representative’s assertions.
§ First, as noted above, it remains the case that the applicant has produced no statements of support or other persuasive evidence from any persons linked with the Gulen movement. This is despite the applicant’s stay at the [Address 1] house (which the Tribunal accepts may be linked with a Gulenist charity). He also told the Tribunal that, from 2010, he attended prayer meetings and discussions with a named Australian citizen (initials ‘[Mr C]’), and made donations. He implied that this person is associated with the Hizmet movement. However, [Mr C] had declined to assist the applicant. The applicant gave no reason for [Mr C’s] reluctance, but implied it was linked with fear and caution. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant attended a mosque from 2010, but it is not satisfied on the available evidence that [Mr C] is linked with the Hizmet movement or that he has declined to assist the applicant out of fear.
-   Towards the end of the hearing, the applicant offered to show the Tribunal a message he had sent to [Mr C] on his mobile telephone. He had reminded [Mr C] of his involvement in the organisation, and how he had taught him to pray. (The applicant added that he had been in an accident at the ‘organisation’, when helping to carry a heavy safe.) [Mr C], who is an Australian citizen, had simply replied that he was travelling overseas and was sorry he did not have time to assist the applicant.
§ Second, the applicant’s statements at the first hearing session - namely that he did not divulge his involvement with the Gulen movement to his acquaintances, due to the movement’s secretive nature, although two of the men used to drop him off for meetings there - are inconsistent with his oral evidence at the second session and the content of the supporting letters. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation for his failure to mention his friends’ knowledge at the first hearing session, namely that he did not have their permission to reveal their names. It would have been open to him to state that his friends knew of his association with the Hizmet movement, but that he first wanted to check. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant has rallied around to seek support for his application, in light of the credibility issues that arose at the hearing.
§ Third, the contents of the supporting letters themselves raise a number of concerns. For instance, it is surprising, if the applicant had minimal personal contact with persons in the [Address 1] house or through other Gulen movement activities (for whatever reason), that he would reveal his links to workmates and other friends who are apparently not affiliated with the group.
-   Some of the letters are completely at odds with the applicant’s own oral evidence about his own activities, and the caution he exercised. For instance, they variously mention that he promoted Gulenist views, by speaking about the lectures and encouraging some of the men to participate.
-   Other letters refer to the applicant’s presence in [Address 1], his attendance at lectures, his reading of Islamic religious texts, as well as the works of Gulen; and his move to [Address 1] to be with ‘likeminded people’. The Tribunal considers that, while each of these statements may be based on some direct observation (such as the applicant’s residence in [Address 1], or his reading of religious texts), in each instance the author appears to have relied on the applicant’s own description of what was going on at the time.
-   Some authors claim to be aware of the applicant having opened and closed [Social Media 1] accounts, and changed telephone numbers, without providing any screenshots or other evidence of what these accounts were, or other details. They also claimed that they warned the applicant about his activities, and/or they now know he has come to the attention of the Turkish authorities. There are no details of or supporting evidence for these statements, and also no persuasive explanation as to why the applicant did not identify these persons earlier or present details of these exchanges.
§ Fourth, the Tribunal has considered the representative’s advice that five further individuals were willing to provide statements to support the applicant’s claims. Essentially, this scenario posits that five unidentified people attended the representative’s office in person (either independently or collectively as a group); that they identified themselves as acquaintances of the applicant; that they indicated their in-principle willingness to provide a supporting statement; and that each of them also changed their mind, explaining that they feared the possible repercussions of being associated with the Gulen movement. The Tribunal has concluded above that the applicant relies on friends and workmates who have no association with the Gulen movement, and whose accounts rely on information that he has provided to them (for instance, about his protection claims). Given the Tribunal’s already serious concerns that the applicant has contrived to elicit statements that are either untrue or misleading, it places no weight on the willingness of five persons to signal to the representative their knowledge of the applicant’s circumstances, but who declined to identify themselves or provide written statements.
Taking all of these concerns together, the Tribunal places minimal weight on these letters as independent corroboration of the applicant’s claimed association, actual or perceived, with any Gulenist group.
The applicant’s fears relating to the Gulen movement
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is apprehensive about returning to Turkey. In light of the above analysis, however, it concludes that his main focus is one of disappointment about his experiences in Australia, including at the cancellation of his permanent residency, his failed relationships and other difficulties he has faced (which may include personal conflicts, and an assault in prison). While it accepts that he is a practising Sunni Muslim, it does not accept that he is a Gulenist. It accepts, on the basis that it is plausible, that he has some concerns that the Turkish authorities may learn that he lived in a [Address 1] address that is linked with the Gulen movement, and impute him with support for the movement.
Former de facto’s allegations made to the Turkish authorities
The applicant claimed that he is confident that the Turkish authorities have an adverse interest in him, because his former de facto partner made allegations about him during her return visit to Turkey in 2017. He claimed that she went to Turkey for about a month or six weeks, and contacted the Turkish authorities. His partner’s mother in Turkey, who is an honest, religious person, advised the applicant about the call.
By way of background, the applicant said that his former de facto had been abusive towards him and her children, despite his financial support of her; that she had been in trouble with the [Agency 1] and [Agency 2]; and that she had similarly reported her ex-husband on a different matter. As for any supporting evidence that she alerted the Turkish authorities to him, the applicant explained that he has been in prison for a while; that he lost his phone; and that he no longer has any contact with his former de facto.
The applicant provided a telephone number in Turkey for a woman he described as his former de facto’s mother (his ex-de facto mother-in-law). He said that he has a good relationship with her, and she is unhappy about her daughter’s actions. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s willingness to provide this number, and accepts that the person at the other end may have been able to confirm his narrative. However, the applicant provided no context for why his former de facto would take such steps, other than to suggest she is a generally vindictive person. Given the extent of the Tribunal’s concerns that the applicant’s claims are unreliable and misconstrued, and also taking into account his failure to mention such fears prior to May 2019, the Tribunal does not accept that his former de facto partner has made any such allegations to the Turkish authorities. It also does not accept that this claim is related to the Turkish Consulate-General’s willingness to provide him only with a travel certificate (rather than a full replacement passport).
The applicant’s passport
The applicant’s first Turkish passport expired in 2015, and he obtained a replacement passport on 10 March 2015. He claims to have since lost this passport.
The applicant claims that Turkish consular officials declined to issue him with a permanent replacement passport when he applied for one in 2017. The applicant attributed this to their knowledge of his involvement with the Gulen movement, and in particular to the allegations that his former de facto partner made to the Turkish authorities.
The delegate noted the applicant’s claims that Turkish consular officials declined to issue him with a passport, and that they reportedly told him ‘maybe there is a case against you’, and ‘maybe you have problems in Turkey’. The delegate noted: (a) the applicant’s reliance on a reported statement from a nameless Turkish official; (b) the possibility that the Turkish authorities had delayed issuing him with a passport for reasons other than any adverse interest in him (i.e. as a person on a blacklist); and (c) the applicant’s apparent acceptance of this advice, without any further follow-up. In light of these concerns, the delegate placed no weight on the fact that the applicant has no current Turkish passport, as evidence that the Turkish authorities have an adverse interest in him.
The applicant provided further details at hearing. He said that about a month after his first release from prison (hence, in about August 2017), he applied for a replacement passport. He went to the counter of the Turkish Consulate-General, without an appointment, with his identity documents and a copy of the police report for the lost passport. Consular officials told him that they would refer the matter to Ankara and expected a response in about three months. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was imprisoned again before expiry of the three months (in November 2017). He said that, after his subsequent release from prison and his transfer into immigration detention, he eventually telephoned the consulate, and they advised words to the effect that they could not issue him with a passport due to a ‘matter in Turkey’, or a ‘legal matter’. He intimated that they were vague, and either did not know or were not authorised to reveal to him what was going on.
The applicant said he was sure that the real reason why the Turkish authorities denied him a passport was because his former de facto had gone to Turkey and reported him.
The applicant’s representative submitted copies of recent email correspondence between him and the Turkish Consulate-General relating to their (alleged) denial of a full passport to the applicant, and showed the Tribunal the correspondence on his mobile device:
§ In an email dated [in] August 2019, Mr [L] wrote to the Consulate-General, in English, noting that the applicant’s ‘application for a new passport was denied on the basis that he had an ongoing investigation against him in Turkey’. It further reads: ‘We note that although a general reason has been provided to him as a ground to deny him a Turkish passport, specifics of the subject investigation was not provided. [sic] It is therefore, with instructions from our client, our request that a detailed explanation is provided to us as to why [he] was not issued with a passport.’
§ In a response dated [later in] August 2019, an unnamed person from the Turkish Consulate-General wrote: ‘[…] due to an ongoing investigation in Turkey related to [the applicant], he was not issued with a passport. Nevertheless, he was informed at the time and later that he could be issued with a Travel Certificate’.

During discussion about this correspondence, the representative advised that he had corresponded with Turkish consular authorities in English on similar matters. As for the reference to an ‘ongoing investigation’, he confirmed that this was based on the applicant’s recollection of what consular officials had told him some years earlier, when he had sought a replacement passport.
The Tribunal accepts on the available evidence that the applicant has lost his most recent Turkish passport; and that the Turkish Consulate-General has offered to provide him with a travel certificate, but not a passport. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Consulate-General’s use of the word’s ‘ongoing investigation’, which echoes the language of the applicant’s representative, indicates that he is a person of adverse interest to them due to any perceived links with the Gulenist movement (whether due to his residence at the [Address 1] house, or any allegations made by his former de facto partner). Given that the applicant has reported Turkish passport lost, has no valid Australian visa and has been convicted and imprisoned due to criminal offences, the Tribunal considers it unexceptional that the Turkish authorities have offered to supply a travel certificate rather than a full Turkish passport.
Turkish authorities’ awareness of protection visa application
The Tribunal accepts that Turkish consular officials know that the applicant has spent time in prison in Australia, as he told them this was the reason they could not contact him after he applied for a replacement passport. In turn, they may assume that he has not acquired Australian citizenship, and they may wonder whether his imprisonment has jeopardised his immigration status in Australia. At hearing, the representative said that a Turkish consular official had asked him by telephone for background information about the applicant. While this may have been an innocuous question aimed at clarifying Mr [L]’s email of [August] 2019, it could also suggest that Turkish officials consider that he has some ongoing application or other matter. In sum, the Tribunal is unable to make firm findings about the extent of Turkish consular officials’ knowledge of the applicant’s current circumstances, or the extent of their interest in this. However, it is possible that they suspect he has applied for protection.
Findings of fact
Having regard to the applicant’s claims and evidence, as a whole, and in particular in light of the concerns set out above, the Tribunal makes the following findings:
§ The applicant adopted Sunni Muslim practices in Australia, following his marriage; and that he has become more devout during his de facto relationship.
§ It accepts that this has caused him some tension with his family in the past, but it does not accept that they threatened, assaulted, detained or otherwise harmed him during his visit to Turkey in 2012/2013. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has an ongoing relationship with his family.
§ The applicant has engaged in various religious activities in [City 1], including at [Mosque 2], and with a Muslim teacher named [Mr C]. The Tribunal does not accept that any of these activities were linked with the Gulenist movement prior to 2016.
§ The applicant lived in a house [Address 1] from 2016, for about a year. This was emergency accommodation that he obtained following the break-up of his de facto relationship, and the issuance of an AVO against him. The Tribunal accepts, as plausible, that the house is operated by a charity associated with the Gulenist movement. The Tribunal finds that the applicant and other occupants lived there, paid a nominal rent (in the form of a ‘donation’), but did not socialise with each other or have any more than passing involvement in other activities in that place.
§ The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s former de facto partner alerted the Turkish authorities on her return visit to Turkey in 2017 that the applicant is linked with the Gulenists.
§ The Turkish authorities are aware of the applicant’s conviction and imprisonment in Australia (after he told them); and they have offered to provide him with a travel certificate for his return to Turkey (rather than a fully-fledged replacement passport for the one that he lost). While the Turkish Consulate-General echoed the representative’s words that there is an ‘investigation’, the Tribunal is of the view that this is unexceptional given their knowledge of the applicant’s imprisonment in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that the use of that word signals that the Turkish authorities are investigating him for reason of any Gulenist links, or other adverse religious or political profile.
§ The Tribunal considers it possible, though far from certain, that the Turkish authorities suspect that the applicant has applied for protection in Australia, or that they may come to suspect it in the reasonably foreseeable future.
§ The applicant’s primary concerns relate to his wish to remain in Australia, although he has some apprehension about the Turkish authorities’ possible knowledge that he lived in accommodation provided by a charity with Gulenist links.
ASSESSMENT: REFUGEE CRITERION
The Tribunal now assesses whether, in light of the above findings of fact, and having regard also to any other relevant factors – in particular, country information concerning the Turkish authorities’ attitudes to Gulenists, and the applicant’s future conduct – there is a real chance of him experiencing serious harm amounting to persecution if he returns to Turkey, for any one or more of the reasons enumerated in s.5J(1).
The applicant told the Tribunal that he had not thought about what he would do if he returned to Turkey. He said emphatically that, even if he were not linked with the Gulenists, he would do anything to avoid having to return to Turkey. He also emphasised that, if he were allowed to remain in Australia, he would not commit any further crimes. On the limited available information, the Tribunal finds that the applicant would likely go back to Aydin or another location in western Turkey, and that he would seek employment in [certain workplaces].
The applicant’s family: In light of the above findings of fact, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance of the applicant’s father, [sibling] or other family members inflicting serious harm amounting to persecution on him, for any reason or combination of reasons. This includes, but is not limited to, any disagreement over his Sunni Muslim practices (such as praying five times a day); his perceived departure from the Alevi faith; disapproval of his former relationships (in particular, with his more conservative former de facto partner); any disappointment at his criminal conviction and imprisonment in Australia; or any disappointment at his return to Turkey, where he may find it more difficult to find work and support his family financially.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s adoption of Sunni Muslim practices will be of adverse interest to the Turkish authorities or anyone, if he returns home. The Tribunal put to the applicant country information indicating that a majority of the Turkish population practices Sunni Islam (some 75-80 per cent, according to the latest DFAT report), and there is an increasing trend towards more overt and conservative religious practice. The applicant agreed that there was no barrier to him practising Sunni Islam in Turkey, but expressed his dissatisfaction that Islam is not being practiced properly in his home area; for instance, he observed, a lot of alcohol is drunk. In response to the Tribunal’s surprise that he appears to prefer Australia, where Islam is practised by a majority, the applicant suggested that he had settled into a Muslim community here.
Gulenist: For the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a Gulenist, or participated in Gulenist religious or other activities, whether from 2009/2010 (as recently claimed) or from 2016, after the applicant broke up with his former de facto partner.
The Tribunal has carefully considered whether the applicant’s residence in the [Address 1] house, for about a year, may give the Turkish authorities cause to perceive of him as a Gulenist. On the basis of the above analysis, the Tribunal finds that the applicant stayed in that house, together with other occupants ([specified] and some other peopled), because it offered him emergency accommodation. It has found that he had minimal contact with the persons responsible for the house, or other occupants, except for a nominal donation and possibly attendance at some of other activities.
The Tribunal takes into account country information, including that in the submissions provided by the applicant, that the Turkish authorities have acted aggressively against persons considered to be Gulenist activists, both high-level politicians and low level activists,[21] and that, in Turkey, they have readily imputed persons with Gulenist motives for actions such as using the Asya Bank or the Bylock messaging system.
The Tribunal also accepts that the Turkish government’s campaign has extended abroad, showing its intention and some capacity to monitor Gulenist groups in Australia and other countries. For instance, in March 2017, the German newspaper Spiegel Online reported that documents produced by overseas Turkish embassies revealed that Turkish diplomats were collecting information on suspected Gulenist supporters in several countries including Australia.[22] In a similar vein, in April 2018, President Erdogan vowed to continue to pursue and repatriate Turkish nationals linked to the Gulen movement, stating ‘no matter where they run or how much they run, we will go after them’.[23] News reports refer to state confidential documents leaked by an Austrian politician revealing that the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) had asked Turkish consulates in 35 countries, including Australia, to gather information about Gulen supporters.[24] Turkish embassies in these countries, including in Australia, reported on schools they believed are affiliated with the Gulen movement, as well as documenting the organisations Gulen supporters are active in, the media they write for and relationships between alleged Gulen supporters and the country’s government.[25]
The Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant is concerned that the Turkish authorities may have gathered some intelligence about [Charity 1]; the house in [Address 1]; and even the activities or comings-and-goings at that property. For obvious reasons, the Tribunal is unable to determine or reach any firm view on whether the Turkish authorities have conducted surveillance on that house or its occupants. However, based on the above findings of fact, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the Turkish authorities – even if they are aware of that house, and the applicant’s past residence there – forming the view that the applicant is a Gulenist. The Tribunal reaches this conclusion having regard to the applicant’s own evidence that there were both Turkish and non-Turkish residents there. It also takes into account his statements that he lived there, but did not interact with or get to know the organisers or other residents, or participate in activities other than making nominal donations (as a kind of de facto rent). It prefers these statements to his later claims that he was involved in various religious/political activities while living there, and that he associated with Gulenists and participated in their activities from as early as 2009/2010.
The Tribunal infers that, in the event that the Turkish authorities have intelligence about the applicant’s residence in the [Address 1] house, for about a year, they will also be aware that he had no broader engagement with the Gulenist movement, whether through the charity’s own religious/political activities, or through other activities. The Tribunal finds there is no real chance of the Turkish authorities perceiving of the applicant as a Gulenist activist (including as a low key activist), or imputing to him a pro-Gulenist political opinion. Having rejected the applicant’s claim that his former de facto partner alleged to the Turkish authorities that he is a Gulenist, the Tribunal also does not accept that the Turkish authorities have an adverse interest in him arising from such an allegation.
The Tribunal accepts, in light of the applicant’s advice that he told the Turkish Consulate-General that he had been in prison, the questions surrounding his immigration status, and also taking into account his representative’s emails and telephone conversation, that the Turkish authorities may suspect or come to suspect that he has applied for protection in Australia. As discussed at hearing, DFAT understands that it is not a crime for Turkish citizens to apply for asylum, and there is no significant stigma attached to this group. The Tribunal also notes DFAT’s advice that ‘Turkey’s sophisticated information databases mean that failed asylum seekers are likely to come to the attention of the government if they have a criminal record or are a member of a group of particular interest, including the Gulen movement, Kurdish or opposition political activist, a human rights activist, or a draft evader or deserter.’ In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Turkish authorities already know about the applicant’s criminal record in Australia but, for the reasons stated above, it does not accept that they have an adverse interest in him as a person involved in the Gulen movement (actual or perceived), or for any related reasons, such as political activism. The Tribunal therefore finds there is no real chance of the Turkish authorities taking an adverse interest in the applicant for reason of his having applied for protection in Australia.
The interpreter: The Tribunal accepts, on the basis that it is plausible though far from certain, that the applicant and the interpreter who appeared at the Tribunal’s first hearing session had met previously, and that the applicant knows or suspects she is linked with his former de facto wife. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s own account that, when she later met him during another interview, she declined to proceed on the basis that it would be unprofessional to do so.
Having rejected the applicant’s claim that his former de facto made false allegations to the Turkish authorities, the Tribunal does not accept that the interpreter would be in a position to endanger him by giving his former de factor partner information that she could forward to the Turkish authorities. Moreover, the Tribunal finds on the available evidence that there is no real chance of the interpreter informing the applicant’s former de facto, other third parties or the Turkish authorities of the applicant’s protection visa application, or the contents of the application. The Tribunal concludes that there is no real chance of the interpreter disclosing information to others that could cause the Turkish authorities to consider him a person of adverse interest, including on political grounds (e.g. as a Gulenist or as a person who has made claims against that government).
Religion: The applicant’s claims about his ‘conversion’ to Sunni Islam related mainly to his family’s rejection of him, which the Tribunal has assessed and rejected above. For the reasons stated above, and in particular taking into account country information about the Sunni Muslim majority and increasing religious observance in Turkey, the Tribunal also finds that there is no real chance that the applicant’s practices, such as praying five times a day, will motivate other people to inflict serious harm amounting to persecution.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and evidence, individually and cumulatively. It is not satisfied that he faces a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution if he returns to Turkey, for reason of his religion, political opinion, actual or imputed, or any other reason set out in s.5J(1).
The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons enumerated in s.5J(1), now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Turkey. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
ASSESSMENT: COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION
The Tribunal has considered whether on the evidence before it, there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Turkey. It takes into account its findings of fact above, the applicant’s future conduct and relevant country information.
The above assessment and findings of fact are relevant to assessing the applicant’s eligibility for complementary protection. He did not present, and the material does not suggest, any other factors that might be relevant to his prospects on return to Turkey. Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33. Having regard to the applicant’s circumstances, cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that he will suffer significant harm in Turkey.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has some concerns about his prospects on his return to Turkey. These arise in part due to his absence from that country for over a decade, and the initial challenges he may face in settling back into life there, such as finding work. It accepts that he may be concerned about Turkey’s political situation, economic challenges and its patchy human rights record, particularly in the wake of the failed coup attempt in July 2016. However, based on his personal circumstances and relevant country information, the Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant himself will suffer significant harm as a result of these general conditions: s.36(2A). (The Tribunal also notes that, in any event, the associated risks are faced by Turkey’s population generally, and not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B)(c).)
The Tribunal concludes that there is no real risk that the applicant will be subjected to any form of harm which would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on him, such as: - (a) to meet the definition of torture; or (b) to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or (c) to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment. It is also not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty. In other words, the Tribunal finds no other grounds that suggest he will be subject to significant harm, for any reason, if he returns to Turkey.
Accordingly the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence the applicant being removed from Australia to Turkey, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa).
CONCLUSION
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).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
James Silva
Member

ATTACHMENT – RELEVANT LAW
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.
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.
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).
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.
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), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, 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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)    any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)    the person can access the protection; and
(b)   the protection is durable; and
(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[1] At hearing, the applicant mostly used the term Hizmet, meaning ‘service; and he sometimes mentioned the term Cemaat, ‘community. The Tribunal refers to the more usual English terminology of Gulen movement in this decision. Some submissions and references also refer to the term FETÖ, which is the Turkish abbreviation for ‘Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation’).

[Organisation 2]

[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report – Turkey, 9 October 2018, paras. 3.36; 3.39 and 3.40.

2018

[5] Spiegel Online, Turkey’s Worldwide monitoring of suspected Gulen supporters, 31 March 2017,
See the delegate’s decision record.

[7] [Organisation 2] records. The Tribunal put this information to the Tribunal under s.424A.

[8] [Organisation 2] consultations, 22 and 27 March 2019

[9] Consultation, 5 April 2019

[10] DFAT Country Information Report – Turkey, 9 October 2019, paras 2.7, and 3.12.

[11] See submission of 14 August 2019

[12] The Tribunal discussed this with the applicant at hearing, and put the adverse information to him pursuant to the procedure in s.424A.

[13] Consultation, 30 July 2018

[14] Consultation, 11 June 2018

[15] Consultation, 26 June 2018

[16] Consultation, 21 May 2018

[17] DFAT Country Information Report – Turkey, 9 October 2018

[18] The Saturday Paper, March 25-31, 2017: Turkish cleric Gülen’s Australian supporters fear reprisals:

[19] The Tribunal advised the applicant of this at the hearing, referring to the public register of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission: [Source deleted]

[20] [Source deleted]

[21] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Turkey, 9 October
2018

[22] Spiegel Online, Turkey’s Worldwide monitoring of suspected Gulen supporters, 31 March 2017,

[23] Vice News, Turkey’s spy agency has secretly abducted 80 Turkish citizens living abroad,11 April
2018

[24] Huffington Post, Turkey’s influence network in Europe is leading to tension, 5 June 2017,

[25] The Australian, Ankara-supplied clerics spy on Turkish-Australian communities, 20 December
2016,

[2019] AATA 6826

9 October 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction