1915654 (Refugee)

Case [2022] AATA 3198


1915654 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 3198 (11 August 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1915654

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Turkey

MEMBER:Sheridan Lee

DATE:11 August 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 August 2022 at 1:07pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Turkey – imputed political opinion – religion – involvement with Fethullah Gulen movement – vague and implausible evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 351, 424AA
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751
SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FMCA 78
WZARI v MIMAC [2013] FCA 788

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

  1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 11 June 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

  2. The applicant is [an age]-year-old male from Izmir, Turkey. He first arrived in Australia [in] August 2009 on a [temporary] visa. Since his first arrival, the applicant has departed and returned to Australian on eight occasions.

  3. He applied for the protection visa on 14 November 2016 on the basis that he would be persecuted by the Turkish government for his involvement with the Fetullah Gulen movement. The delegate did not accept the applicant’s claim to have volunteered with the Gulen movement and refused to grant the visa.

  4. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for merits review of that decision on 17 June 2019. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the application for review. He was first invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal to take place on 19 January 2022, however due to regulations imposed to control the spread of COVID-19, the hearing could not take place on that day. The Tribunal offered the applicant a video hearing, however he requested that the hearing be postponed until it could be heard in person. I agreed to the applicant’s request, and the hearing was rescheduled.

  5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 March 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s wife, [Ms A]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Turkish and English languages.

  6. The Tribunal viewed a copy of the applicant’s Turkish passport, issued [in] 2021. I accept that the applicant is a citizen of Turkey and will assess his claims against Turkey as the country of reference for the…

Continue reading 1915654 (Refugee)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
1915654 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 3198
Case
[2022] AATA 3198
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a man from Izmir, Turkey, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically alleging persecution based on his religion and involvement with the Fethullah Gulen movement. The decision was made by Sheridan Lee, a Member of the Tribunal.

The court was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or political opinion, as defined by the Migration Act 1958, or if he faced a real risk of significant harm as a consequence of being removed from Australia. This involved assessing the credibility and plausibility of the applicant's claims in light of available country information and departmental guidelines.

The Tribunal Member considered the applicant's evidence regarding his religious adherence and alleged involvement with the Fethullah Gulen movement. However, the Member found the evidence presented to be vague and implausible, failing to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Member noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion of being a refugee or facing complementary protection obligations. Furthermore, the applicant did not qualify as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, I have taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidenceBackground The applicant claims to be [an age]-year-old man, born in Izmir, Turkey. He adheres to the Islamic faith and can communicate in Turkish and English. On his application for protection form, the applicant reported that he completed primary school at [School 1] and high school at [School 2]. No post-secondary qualifications were listed. The applicant had a career as a seaman for more than [number]-years, working as a [specified role] on a ship when he first travelled to Australia. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he had visited more than 80 countries due to his work. A copy of the applicant’s Seaman’s Book, issued by the Republic of Turkey [in] 2009, was provided to the Department as evidence of his service at sea. At the time of the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was not working. He noted that he had no work rights on his current visa, however he had previously worked in [a specified industry] when his visa conditions allowed. The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] August 2009 on a [temporary] visa. Since his first arrival, the applicant has departed and returned to Australian on eight occasions. The applicant gave evidence that he travelled through the ports of [specified Australian cities] on his ship. He further claimed that he last returned to Turkey in 2013, noting that he was unable to return since that time because of his visa restrictions. On 4 December 2012, the applicant was granted a [different temporary] visa. Then in 2013 he was granted a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa. In a written statement provided with his application for protection, the applicant claimed that he met his former partner, [Ms B], in Izmir in 2009 and they had a de facto relationship in Turkey for two years. He gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing that his relationship with [Ms B] did not last a year once he arrived in Australia. There was a marriage date set, but the couple separated before they were married. On 1 April 2014, the applicant lodged an application for a [Visitor] visa while onshore. The application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 7 April 2014. The applicant appealed that decision to the Tribunal, and on 6 January 2015, the Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the decision to refuse the visa. The applicant then requested that the Minister exercise their discretion under s 351 of the Act to grant the visa. The request was unsuccessful. The applicant had a child with his previous partner, who was aged [age] on the day of the Tribunal hearing. A copy of a birth certificate issued by the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for [Son A] was provided to the Tribunal. The certificate lists [Son A’s] date of birth as [date] and his parents are listed as [Ms B] and [the applicant]. [Son A] is an Australian citizen by virtue of having been born to an Australian mother.

Decision

Reasons for decision

There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).decision The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.Sheridan LeeMemberAttachment - Extract from Migration Act 19585 (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.…5H Meaning of refugee(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.…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 the 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 familyFor 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 familyFor 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.…36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act…(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.(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.…

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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, I have taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidenceBackground The applicant claims to be [an age]-year-old man, born in Izmir, Turkey. He adheres to the Islamic faith and can communicate in Turkish and English. On his application for protection form, the applicant reported that he completed primary school at [School 1] and high school at [School 2]. No post-secondary qualifications were listed. The applicant had a career as a seaman for more than [number]-years, working as a [specified role] on a ship when he first travelled to Australia. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he had visited more than 80 countries due to his work. A copy of the applicant’s Seaman’s Book, issued by the Republic of Turkey [in] 2009, was provided to the Department as evidence of his service at sea. At the time of the Tribunal hearing, the applicant was not working. He noted that he had no work rights on his current visa, however he had previously worked in [a specified industry] when his visa conditions allowed. The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] August 2009 on a [temporary] visa. Since his first arrival, the applicant has departed and returned to Australian on eight occasions. The applicant gave evidence that he travelled through the ports of [specified Australian cities] on his ship. He further claimed that he last returned to Turkey in 2013, noting that he was unable to return since that time because of his visa restrictions. On 4 December 2012, the applicant was granted a [different temporary] visa. Then in 2013 he was granted a Subclass 300 Prospective Marriage visa. In a written statement provided with his application for protection, the applicant claimed that he met his former partner, [Ms B], in Izmir in 2009 and they had a de facto relationship in Turkey for two years. He gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing that his relationship with [Ms B] did not last a year once he arrived in Australia. There was a marriage date set, but the couple separated before they were married.