1936553 (Refugee)

The applicants sought a protection visa, claiming they would face persecution in Turkey due to their political and religious beliefs, and later, an imputed political opinion as followers of Fethullah Gulen. The primary applicant expressed secularist views and disagreement with the teaching of religion in schools, while also fearing discrimination as a woman. Her daughters had attended a school associated with the Gulen movement in Australia, and the primary applicant had worked there. The court was required to determine whether, based on the accepted claims and evidence, the applicants were persons to whom Australia owed protection obligations.

The court considered the applicants' secularist views, their past protests against the Turkish government, their association with a Gulen-associated school in Australia, and the third applicant's expressed uncertainty about her sexuality and fears regarding her ability to express it freely in Turkey. The legal issues involved assessing the credibility of the factual basis for these claims and evaluating them against the applicable legal framework for protection visas, including the definition of a refugee and the complementary protection criterion. The court also had to consider whether the applicants' associations or characteristics would realistically bring them to the adverse attention of the Turkish government, and whether they could access effective protection within Turkey.

The court accepted that the applicants were truthful witnesses and that they were secular, well-educated, and largely westernised. It was also accepted that the family did not support the Turkish government, that the daughters had attended a Gulen-associated school, and that the primary applicant had worked there. Despite the applicants' claims of tenuous links to the Gulen movement, the court found that human rights observers had expressed concerns about the Turkish government's lack of clear criteria for linking individuals to the movement, leading to arrests based on various associations, including attending such schools. Considering the current information regarding the political situation in Turkey, the court concluded that the family faced a real chance of serious harm due to their links with a Gulen-associated school, and that the third applicant might face difficulties securing employment due to her attendance at such an institution. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to make findings on the remaining claims.

The Tribunal was satisfied that each of the applicants was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, thus satisfying criterion s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. The matter was remitted for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy this criterion.