Australia- Two sisters in their 20s found dead inside Sydney unit had been there lengthy time, Suspicious deaths, June 2022

[ikarka]

Do you think they are refused due to the criteria being impossible to meet or does Aus govt not want to upset the countries these women come from?

My experience both working on individual files and on policy more broadly, is that refugees an asylum seekers became extremely political in the mid-2000s and since then the Government has made it almost impossible to get refugee status. The process is extremely complicated (and if you mess it up, your visa is likely to be refused), the criteria is extremely narrow and the proof you need to provide is very high. For example, when I was doing visas, you had to remember every street address you'd lived at for the last 30 years, and any inconsistencies could lead to refusal. That's just one example, there are hundreds like it. And remember many of the people applying have been through trauma, have lost their documents when fleeing violence, and often live in places where you don't necessarily have a typical street address (e.g. if you live in a village in Afghanistan or Sierra Leone).

To illustrate, less than 10% of off-shore asylum seeker applications are granted (that's what I was doing, I believe on shore - like these sisters - is closer to 50%).

In the case of these sisters, another issue is that gender is not recognised as a basis for refugee status. The definition of a refugee is "someone who is outside his or her country of origin owing to a well founded fear of persecution on the basis of race; religion; nationality; membership of a particular social group or political affiliation". So gender of itself is not grounds for refugee status, generally. There's also an issue that "persecution" is a high bar - being subject to oppressive treatment in SA is not necessarily persecution under the definition. Australia does have another visa called Women at Risk which may possibly be applicable, however the criteria for that is even more stringent, there are even fewer of them, and they are usually granted to women who have already been deemed refugees by the UNHCR.

I think there is some complexity around foreign affairs (e.g. some people in the field say it's very hard to get refugee visas for Chinese citizens due to the complexity of the relationship) however I don't know enough about it to comment. In my experience it's more about the Government wanting to look tough on borders to look good to domestic voters, at the expense of vulnerable people

 

[Arboreal]

The latter, but the former too.
However, the "Guardian Australia ... confirmed Asra Abdullah Alsehli, 24, and Amaal Abdullah Alsehli, 23, were asylum seekers: each had an active claim for asylum ongoing with the Department of Home Affairs and had engaged with settlement services providers in Sydney. The nature of their claim for asylum – their basis for seeking protection – is not known. [Emphasis added]
The Guardian story suggests the claims for asylum had not been finalised.
Below is a precis of the report in the Australian.
This is already such a sad, tragic case and this information, if true, just makes it worse. The claims in The Australian are quite believable, but are they true? The former government, voted out in May, working under the guise of "protecting Australia from illegal arrivals", by presenting themselves as "tough on security". In reality, they were stoking fear and playing on bigotry about immigrants and foreigners in general and attempting to put their political opponents in an awkward position.
The Australian does not say it, but the government must make a decision within 90 days and if rejected, a person can appeal an adverse decision. Many adverse decisions are overruled. The sisters were not in immigration detention. This suggests that if they had been refused a protection visa they may have had appeals pending. As well, people refused visas in Australia have been known to apply to other countries, such as Canada who tend to be a more humane.
The 90 day period is interesting in that the sisters had been in Australia for over 4 years and were reported to have made an application just after they arrived, and certainly by the time they were living in the same house with Rita (see earlier posts). The sisters had not been detained as illegal over stayers.
For these reasons I would like to see more proof about the sisters' visa applications and possible refusal.
Some pages, here, here, here and here, set out the visa eligibility.

Precis of The Australian article
Suicide sisters refused visas to stay in Australia
Liam Mendes
Midnight, August 8, 2022
The Saudi sisters found dead in their beds in their Sydney apartment had applied for permanent protection visas but their applications had been rejected.The Australian quoted "a source familiar with their application".
According to The Australian:
- one of the sisters, the Australian says believed to be 23-year-old Amaal, applied on the basis she was a lesbian. Her application was denied because she could not describe the gay events she went to in Sydney in sufficient detail. [Comment: if true, this is mind boggling. The sisters were shy and may well have not attended many events, and in any case, how do you "prove" you are gay if you are mostly at home?" Would attending the Sydney mardis gras be enough? - that's rhetorical, BTW]
- the other sister, 24-year-old Asra applied on the grounds that she was an atheist, but was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the application. [Comment: Again, how do you prove you are an atheist? Spit on the Koran?]
[Comment: The elder sister has been reported in the press as having a boy friend and as seeking an AVO and then withdrawing the application. The Australian presents this matter this way: In 2019, an apprehended violence order was applied for by police on behalf of Asra against a man who told reporters he had a “small fight” with her. The matter was withdrawn and dismissed following one court hearing. For police to apply for an order, Asra would have been interviewed and details taken. However, police have claimed they knew nothing about the sisters. Moreover, to have a "boy friend" not sanctioned by the family, would put a woman at risk of lethal harm and inhuman and degrading treatment. Additionally, having a boyfriend is considered "adultery". And the punishment for adultery, is death, though often "remitted" to a severe beating.]
- One of the sisters - the Australian does not say which one - also claimed that she was escaping a forced marriage.
- The Australian claims the sisters applied for the subclass 866 protection visa, which is for individuals who arrived in Australia on a valid visa and are seeking asylum.
It can be granted so long as certain requirements are met. According to the Australian, to be granted a visa under this subclass, individuals who have a “well-founded fear of persecution” who are unable or unwilling to return to their home country are eligible for the visa. [Note: One would think that being a woman in Saudi Arabia would be sufficient; but even setting that aside, given the sisters escaped to Australia and the Australian government must know what happens to woman who escape, it does seem particularly obtuse to deny the sisters did not have a "well-founded fear of persecution".]
The Department of Home Affairs would not comment on the sisters' cases, appealing to "privacy reasons".
The Australian also went into other details, stating amongst other things:
- The sisters could have been dead for up to six weeks before their fully clothed bodies were discovered by their landlord’s representative in June.
[Comment: The ABC BB program said the bodies were discovered by the Sheriff]
- The sisters bodies were in an advanced state of decomposition.
The Australian repeated what a "senior police source" told the The Daily Telegraph newspaper last week, that “There is no indication of anyone else being in the unit … no forced entry. It really does appear to be a tragic suicide”.
The Australian then repeats other claims made in the press, namely that non-perishable food items, a bottle of bleach and clothing were found in the bedrooms and that a computer was found and has been taken for forensic testing.

 

[Arboreal]

My experience both working on individual files and on policy more broadly, is that refugees an asylum seekers became extremely political in the mid-2000s and since then the Government has made it almost impossible to get refugee status. The process is extremely complicated (and if you mess it up, your visa is likely to be refused), the criteria is extremely narrow and the proof you need to provide is very high. For example, when I was doing visas, you had to remember every street address you'd lived at for the last 30 years, and any inconsistencies could lead to refusal. That's just one example, there are hundreds like it. And remember many of the people applying have been through trauma, have lost their documents when fleeing violence, and often live in places where you don't necessarily have a typical street address (e.g. if you live in a village in Afghanistan or Sierra Leone).

To illustrate, less than 10% of off-shore asylum seeker applications are granted (that's what I was doing, I believe on shore - like these sisters - is closer to 50%).

In the case of these sisters, another issue is that gender is not recognised as a basis for refugee status. The definition of a refugee is "someone who is outside his or her country of origin owing to a well founded fear of persecution on the basis of race; religion; nationality; membership of a particular social group or political affiliation". So gender of itself is not grounds for refugee status, generally. There's also an issue that "persecution" is a high bar - being subject to oppressive treatment in SA is not necessarily persecution under the definition. Australia does have another visa called Women at Risk which may possibly be applicable, however the criteria for that is even more stringent, there are even fewer of them, and they are usually granted to women who have already been deemed refugees by the UNHCR.

I think there is some complexity around foreign affairs (e.g. some people in the field say it's very hard to get refugee visas for Chinese citizens due to the complexity of the relationship) however I don't know enough about it to comment. In my experience it's more about the Government wanting to look tough on borders to look good to domestic voters, at the expense of vulnerable people

Hi ikarka
Thank you for such a clear explanation. Would claiming to be gay - assuming the claimant could prove it - satisfy "membership of a social group"?

 

[Dotta]

This case is absolutely mind blowing for me.
And extremely sad.

I guess I have never realised how lucky I am living in my country where women are equal to men and daughteres are cherished and supported in whatever career they choose.

But then, freedom must not never be taken for granted.

MOO

 

[ikarka]

Hi ikarka
Thank you for such a clear explanation. Would claiming to be gay - assuming the claimant could prove it - satisfy "membership of a social group"?

Hi Arboreal

Yes, sexuality and gender identity (i.e. if you are transgender) are both recognised under the social group category.

Your questions are 100% correct and reflective of the huge problems that asylum seekers face, especially those seeking asylum based on being LGBTQ. Very, very often there is little to no evidence that people are queer because, ironically, doing so in their home country would lead them to be persecuted. But that fact precludes them from getting refugee status because there is no proof. This is probably very similar to being an atheist in Saudi Arabia as well.

Horrifically, I know of cases (that are on the record) where people have recorded themselves performing intimate acts with their same gender partners to "prove" they are queer. In many cases, they have still been refused - for example, photos of an engagement were said to not show "s-xual intimacy". Then, more personal videos/photos have been rejected for being staged. Obviously, this would be very embarrassing for most people, but with cultural considerations it's absolutely horrifying.

Also re your point about proving you are queer, again you are on the money. The stereotyping of what a "homosexual lifestyle" (the Tribunal's words) looks like would be almost comical if it didn't have such horrifying consequences. Here is an excerpt from an actual published decision, denying a protection visa:

"[The Tribunal] had regard to the fact he could name only two gay sites on Oxford Street, both of which were said to be very prominent, did not know the name of the main Sydney gay newspaper, and could name only one gay website that he had visited"

I.e., the visa was rejected because this person didn't know gay bars in Sydney or know the main gay newspaper. This is despite the fact my understanding is this person was a Muslim who didn't drink alcohol and had only limited English reading proficiency.

This is a really good article about the problems: Berthelot, Will --- "Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity As A Basis For Refugee Claims In Australia" [2020] UNSWLawJlStuS 1; (2020) UNSWLJ Student Series No 20-01

 

[branmuffin]

I think it would still be difficult for most women to overcome their familys' cultural beliefs too, I think majority would be oppressed, even if the rules are eased, I don't think many woman will realistically have access to these freedoms, the govt may allow them but convincing their male guardians or the men in their family would be another barrier.

You are absolutely correct. About 30 years ago a female university student in Guelph Ontario, thought it was too hot to wear a bra and top so decided to go topless. She wandered around town and got arrested for public indecency. The courts ruled it wasn't a crime to go around topless.

Thirty years later, women still don't walk around topless in Canada not because they worry about being arrested but because female breasts are sexualized in western societies and it would bring unwanted, dangerous attention to them. Now take that mindset to the nth degree where a woman who has been brought up in a repressive society, where showing your face, your hair, your ankles is a sign of disrespect and the flaunting of rules would subject you to physical harm. Those societies, just like ours, don't even consider that it's the response from males that limit a women's freedom, not the desire of women to be topless or wear shorts. Instead of making the male pay the price for their unbridled sexual response to these women, the women pay. So it's quite understandable that just because these two sisters escaped SA didn't mean they'd go in whole hog for the kind of freedom western women enjoy.

Around the same time as Gwen Jacob's stroll around Guelph topless, a woman who worked in a bar with a friend of mine was harassed and followed by a customer when her shift was over. He attacked her and tried to rape her but she escaped. She called LE because she knew exactly who he was, he was arrested and charged with forcible confinement and attempted rape. But the funny thing was during the trial, she became the one who was on trial. The defense lawyer demanded she come to court wearing her bar uniform, the implicit suggestion being that her outfit tempted the guy and you know, what's a fella to do if a gorgeous woman wearing a tailored white shirt with a black tie, a straight black skirt and black stocking serves him? He got convicted but it illustrates that if our society can't stop blaming women for things men do, I can see why these girls may not have fully embraced the new freedoms they had in Oz. I agree with a poster upthread that attending an all women gay group may have just been an attempt to have some companionship, regardless whether one of them was gay or not.

I feel so sorry for these two young women. What a terrible end to such a valiant effort to live normal full lives. It must have been exhausting to live with such trauma, anxiety and fear, only for it to increase tenfold when Covid hit and their world became even smaller.

Way back, I think in my first post, I wondered if they succumbed to some kind of poisoning, whether intentional or not. I referred to two young Quebec woman who died in a Phuket hotel room when the pesticide used by the hotel to eliminate bedbugs ended up killing them. And they weren't alone, there is a veritable list of deaths in hotels all over the world for the very same thing. Not just indoor insecticides but herbicides used to combat pests on outdoor plants.

Sandals Bahamas hotel guests complained of insecticide odor where Americans found dead: report

Vacationers who have recently been in the area of the Sandals Bahamas resort where three Americans were found dead say they have complained about the "strong odor" of insecticide there, according to a report Tuesday.

www.ktvu.com

Toxic insecticide 'sprayed in room next door to Brits who died in Egypt hotel'

John, 69, and Susan Cooper, 63, died within hours of each other on the Thomas Cook holiday - and it's since emerged a hotel room nearby was sealed off

www.mirror.co.uk

Toxic insecticide 'sprayed in room next door to Brits who died in Egypt hotel'

John, 69, and Susan Cooper, 63, died within hours of each other on the Thomas Cook holiday - and it's since emerged a hotel room nearby was sealed off

www.mirror.co.uk

I believe their apartment was over a restaurant. Can someone verify that for me? If you live over a restaurant you can have problems with cockroaches or other pests. A lot of times when regular maintenance for pest control is required there's always a couple of units that refuse, for whatever reason, to let the pest control people in making it impossible to get rid of them. If they did have a problem with pests perhaps they were attempting to rid the unit of them using their own products. Would they have been financially responsible for any additional costs if refusal of entry created a problem? All this is pure speculation on my part, trying to come up with a scenario, that doesn't include murder or suicide, that could have resulted in them dying through misadventure. I definitely don't think they were murdered but sadly I think suicide is a possibility.

 

[Dotta]

To tell the truth, when I read the reasons the sisters gave to obtain the resident visas in Australia, they seemed to me a bit of a stretch.
(gay/atheist)
Not very believeable.

"Forced marriage" seemed more credible.

I can understand that Australian authorities are cautious when deciding about these matters.
Priority is given to those who flee from war torn countries I guess.
And SA is not such a country.

MOO

 

[branmuffin]

Do you think they are refused due to the criteria being impossible to meet or does Aus govt not want to upset the countries these women come from?

If they get oil from them, maybe.

 

[cvaldez1975]

To tell the truth, when I read the reasons the sisters gave to obtain the resident visas in Australia, they seemed to me a bit of a stretch.
(gay/atheist)
Not very believeable.

"Forced marriage" seemed more credible.

I can understand that Australian authorities are cautious when deciding about these matters.
Priority is given to those who flee from war torn countries I guess.
And SA is not such a country.

MOO

their reasons are theirs. i very much believe gay and atheists would be persecuted in SA.

 

[seekingjustice**]

Twist in Saudi sisters mystery as its revealed they feared a 'private investigator' was pursuing them.​

Saudi sisters found dead in flat 'believed private eye followed them'

The mysterious death of the Saudi sisters who were found dead in their Sydney flat continues to throw up new twists as it emerges they believed a private investigator was following them.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Arboreal]

Hi Arboreal

Yes, sexuality and gender identity (i.e. if you are transgender) are both recognised under the social group category.

Your questions are 100% correct and reflective of the huge problems that asylum seekers face, especially those seeking asylum based on being LGBTQ. Very, very often there is little to no evidence that people are queer because, ironically, doing so in their home country would lead them to be persecuted. But that fact precludes them from getting refugee status because there is no proof. This is probably very similar to being an atheist in Saudi Arabia as well.

Horrifically, I know of cases (that are on the record) where people have recorded themselves performing intimate acts with their same gender partners to "prove" they are queer. In many cases, they have still been refused - for example, photos of an engagement were said to not show "s-xual intimacy". Then, more personal videos/photos have been rejected for being staged. Obviously, this would be very embarrassing for most people, but with cultural considerations it's absolutely horrifying.

Also re your point about proving you are queer, again you are on the money. The stereotyping of what a "homosexual lifestyle" (the Tribunal's words) looks like would be almost comical if it didn't have such horrifying consequences. Here is an excerpt from an actual published decision, denying a protection visa:

"[The Tribunal] had regard to the fact he could name only two gay sites on Oxford Street, both of which were said to be very prominent, did not know the name of the main Sydney gay newspaper, and could name only one gay website that he had visited"

I.e., the visa was rejected because this person didn't know gay bars in Sydney or know the main gay newspaper. This is despite the fact my understanding is this person was a Muslim who didn't drink alcohol and had only limited English reading proficiency.

This is a really good article about the problems: Berthelot, Will --- "Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity As A Basis For Refugee Claims In Australia" [2020] UNSWLawJlStuS 1; (2020) UNSWLJ Student Series No 20-01

Hello Ikarka
Thank your for your very informative reply. I am deeply appreciative. And thank you for the link to the article, which I have read. The salient section, for the present (the Alsehli sisters) is section "B Proving Membership of a Social Group".
As I understand the process, the claim is assessed by a public servant, following enquiries, including an interview with the claimant. If the application is unsuccessful, then the claimant can appeal for a review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Beyond that it goes into the Federal Court and upwards to the High Court, the final court of appeal. I recall that the former government attempted to remove some of these appeal rights.
All that by way of background.
In the case of the Alsehli sisters, we only have the report in the Australian that they were denied a protection. However, the report is consistent with the way the former Australian government behaved and your first hand experiences.
The Immigration department is now hiding behind "Privacy", which is a perversion of that notion. Privacy rights were intended to protect people from government, not governments or their operatives from scrutiny.
I have some more comments that I will make in a following post.

 

[Arboreal]

To tell the truth, when I read the reasons the sisters gave to obtain the resident visas in Australia, they seemed to me a bit of a stretch.
(gay/atheist)
Not very believeable.

"Forced marriage" seemed more credible.

I can understand that Australian authorities are cautious when deciding about these matters.
Priority is given to those who flee from war torn countries I guess.
And SA is not such a country.

MOO

Hello Dotta, Ikarka
It may be seen as off topic, but what follows is relevant to getting to the bottom of what happened to Asra and Amaal Alsehli.
As I understand it, the claim for asylum and protection does not have to be "believable" (which would be to pre-judge, based on the reviewing officer's knowledge and belief) but claims do have to meet the criteria and the onus is on the claimant that they can meet the criteria. They have to provide proof. And that is the rub. How do you prove you are an atheist? How do you prove you are gay?
Apart from what might be taken as overt signs of being an atheist, such as not attending mosque or church, having arguments with family, or postings on social media that are detailed in your phone and computer records, or say, wearing a T-shirt, it is going to be very difficult to prove the affirmative. That is to say, prove you have a particular belief or don't or prove you have a particular sexuality.
It is made all the more difficult because in Saudi Arabia, abandoning Islam and declaring yourself an atheist is a capital crime. So, you are not likely to do it while you are there. You might be able to amass some "evidence" once you are safely out of the kingdom and out of the immediate clutches of "Saudi Mabahith", the kingdom's feared secret police or the quaintly named but utterly sinister Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. [Yes, I am NOT making that up.]
[Continues ...]

 

[Arboreal]

[Continued...]
But what counts as evidence? In the case of sexuality, as Ikarka notes, providing evidence can be humiliating and then it can be rejected because it looks "staged". Again, how would an assessor know that?
In the case of the Alsehli sisters we do know they came from a society that is patriarchal, where fathers and brothers and mothers beat their daughters, husbands rape their wives and uncles have a role in the brutalisation. All this is well documented. And as we know from the Khashoggi case, the Saudi states secret police operate abroad. From the Alsehli sister's point of view, they lived in and were escaping a totalitarian society with tentacles everywhere. So, they are likely to be, as they were observed from the earliest to be, shy, withdrawn, cautious, unsocial because they are living in fear.
Add to that the knowledge that atheism is apostasy; as is being queer is also a religious offence against Allah's divine order that invites punishment, and rejecting their lot in life a females is also apostasy as it involves an inherent rejection of the religion, and that is apostasy, (all that before we get to the shame felt by the family). so, they are hardly likely to be out that the Sydney Rationalists Society or the Gay and Lesbian Mardis Gras or trawling queer venues.
Then, add to that the younger sister who is alleged to be queer, was just 18 when she came to Australia. For many young people, and indeed older people, discussing sexuality is very difficult and embarrassing.
So, sitting in a room with an immigration official, possibly a male, who holds your fate in his or her mind (beliefs, knowledge, bigotry) can be deeply intimidating and humiliating. What would such an officer actually know about Saudi Arabia?
It is no wonder there was no "proof" of atheism or being queer.
Add to that the nature of the government of the time. It fought tooth and nail against marriage equality, when all surveys showed that over 80% of the Australian population did not care a jot and approved marriage equality. And this same government had in it deeply religious individuals from charismatic Christians who flirted with QANON, to deeply conservative Catholics and deeply conservative Protestants who believed just about anything is a sin.
To say that does not leech down into the way officials do their job is fanciful. A wink and a nudge; and in any case, ministers issue instructions on how the legislation they administer is to be interpreted and applied.
[Continues ...]

 

[Arboreal]

[Continued...]
The questions then are, it seems to me, How did the assessing official approach the Alsheli sisters' cases and How should they approach an assessment of claim?
Ikarka gave an answer to the first. by using ill-informed beliefs and inappropriate tests and bigoted assumptions about what a gay life style involves. And having likely no knowledge of Saudi Arabia and the fact there would likely be no evidence, from Saudi Arabia or from Australia.
How should official approach an assessment of claim? Firstly, they need to be aware of the circumstances of the originating society. Second, they need to understand the personalities of the people making the claim: shy, introverted? Afraid? Third, the assessing authority needs to discover why "evidence" is missing: why have they not attended queer haunts? Is it even reasonable they they should? Is it reasonable to think that sexuality is expressed in such overt behaviour? Answer: No.
Why has the claimant not professed their atheism? Are the explanations reasonable, given the personalities and apparent beliefs of the claimants and the societies from which they come? There are likely others.
I am surprised that refugee and asylum seeker advocates have not challenged the approach of the immigration authorities or review authorities as the standards being applied are so utterly inappropriate to the realities of seeking asylum or protection.
[Continues ...]

 

[Arboreal]

[Continued ...]
So, where does that leave us with respect to Asra and Amaal Alsehli?
Although the possibility the sisters were murdered by a relation or someone acting on behalf of the family, the information released so far suggests - only suggests - suicide.
Taking into account the recent story in The Australian that the sisters had been refused protection visas, and the claim made a few days ago that the sisters were seen at a "girls-only" gay event, and their reclusive, fearful existence, and the difficulty in obtaining a protection visa, it is possible their application was refused. This remains to be confirmed.
Counting against this is the four year gap between application and their deaths and the article in the Guardian that they had an "active" application. Moreover, refugee advocates are, one would think, capable of presenting compelling reasons and challenging the reasoning that might be given for refusing a protection visa (such as the absurd, "Prove you, who come from totalitarian Saudi Arabia where they brutalise people who are gay/atheist, are in fact queer/atheist).
Perhaps their application was making its way through the various appeal bodies and in despair and fear, and threats, the sisters gave up hope.

 

[bfew]

They have to provide proof. And that is the rub. How do you prove you are an atheist? How do you prove you are gay?

Even harder to prove with the severe COVID restrictions in Sydney during parts of 2020 and 2021, and the ongoing risk of COVID after restrictions were lifted. Not to forget the early 2022 COVID wave here (Sydney) that saw many people and workplaces self-impose restrictions because of how many people were getting infected with COVID due to Omicron and the 2020 COVID restrictions mostly being lifted.

The restrictions included night time curfews and 5km travel limits for everything apart from work types listed as essential for which you needed to register online with the Government with written proof from your employer, in many areas of Greater Sydney (including mine) during parts of 2021.

For a while there were even bans on having other people visit your households.

The sisters might have been too scared to get COVID vaccinated, and lost work when vaccination was mandatory for a whole host of outdoor jobs that required people to travel outside of their Local Government (Council) Area, to travel to, or go to work.

For those readers in here that never had some of the draconian COVID restrictions that we had in big parts of Sydney, it might be hard to imagine

 

[bfew]

Perhaps their application was making its way through the various appeal bodies

Probably on bridging visas during an ongoing appeals process.

 

[ikarka]

[Continued ...]
So, where does that leave us with respect to Asra and Amaal Alsehli?
Although the possibility the sisters were murdered by a relation or someone acting on behalf of the family, the information released so far suggests - only suggests - suicide.to l
Taking into account the recent story in The Australian that the sisters had been refused protection visas, and the claim made a few days ago that the sisters were seen at a "girls-only" gay event, and their reclusive, fearful existence, and the difficulty in obtaining a protection visa, it is possible their application was refused. This remains to be confirmed.
Counting against this is the four year gap between application and their deaths and the article in the Guardian that they had an "active" application. Moreover, refugee advocates are, one would think, capable of presenting compelling reasons and challenging the reasoning that might be given for refusing a protection visa (such as the absurd, "Prove you, who come from totalitarian Saudi Arabia where they brutalise people who are gay/atheist, are in fact queer/atheist).
Perhaps their application was making its way through the various appeal bodies and in despair and fear, and threats, the sisters gave up hope.

I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head with your responses, thanks for such a detailed and insightful comment.

I could not agree more. It is absolutely reasonable and necessary for there to be questioning and investigation into people's claims, to ensure the system is fair to all, however the key is how we are going about that process and whether we are being fair and reasonable to people. The idea that the queer community is one monolith and you must be a certain (stereotypical) way to be credible is not fair or reasonable. There are plenty of queer people who just want to live their lives quietly with the person they love and raise a family - that is no more or less "gay" than a person who is atop a Mardi Gras float draped in a rainbow flag! This is true of anyone, let alone when you add in cultural considerations which are absolutely huge as well.

Tragically, I would not be surprised if your theory about the hopelessness and despair is correct. I can only imagine how awful the limbo is and seeing the impact on people was another reason I gave up volunteering with asylum seekers. I mean, I went through a two year process for my English husband to get a visa and it was very stressful and demoralising at times -- to imagine how much worse that is when you literally fear death in your homeland... the mind boggles.

If this is the case, my heart really breaks for these sisters and I really hope that if there is anything good to come out of their tragic passing, it may reopen a conversation about how we can exercise a reasonable degree of empathy and rationality in our border policies.

 

[Arboreal]

I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head with your responses, thanks for such a detailed and insightful comment.

I could not agree more. It is absolutely reasonable and necessary for there to be questioning and investigation into people's claims, to ensure the system is fair to all, however the key is how we are going about that process and whether we are being fair and reasonable to people. The idea that the queer community is one monolith and you must be a certain (stereotypical) way to be credible is not fair or reasonable. There are plenty of queer people who just want to live their lives quietly with the person they love and raise a family - that is no more or less "gay" than a person who is atop a Mardi Gras float draped in a rainbow flag! This is true of anyone, let alone when you add in cultural considerations which are absolutely huge as well.

Tragically, I would not be surprised if your theory about the hopelessness and despair is correct. I can only imagine how awful the limbo is and seeing the impact on people was another reason I gave up volunteering with asylum seekers. I mean, I went through a two year process for my English husband to get a visa and it was very stressful and demoralising at times -- to imagine how much worse that is when you literally fear death in your homeland... the mind boggles.

If this is the case, my heart really breaks for these sisters and I really hope that if there is anything good to come out of their tragic passing, it may reopen a conversation about how we can exercise a reasonable degree of empathy and rationality in our border policies.

Hello Ikarka
I agree. To be alone, with little support (and not really able to find it), and fearful and suffering ongoing anxiety and trust issues, and believing that you could be bundled on an aircraft and sent back to a totalitarian, brutal environment.
Like you, my heart breaks for these two, vulnerable, young women.
I hope that when the Coroner's report is handed down that questions get asked in Parliament and that community advocates take up the issue.

 

[Charlot123]

Hi Arboreal

Yes, sexuality and gender identity (i.e. if you are transgender) are both recognised under the social group category.

Your questions are 100% correct and reflective of the huge problems that asylum seekers face, especially those seeking asylum based on being LGBTQ. Very, very often there is little to no evidence that people are queer because, ironically, doing so in their home country would lead them to be persecuted. But that fact precludes them from getting refugee status because there is no proof. This is probably very similar to being an atheist in Saudi Arabia as well.

Horrifically, I know of cases (that are on the record) where people have recorded themselves performing intimate acts with their same gender partners to "prove" they are queer. In many cases, they have still been refused - for example, photos of an engagement were said to not show "s-xual intimacy". Then, more personal videos/photos have been rejected for being staged. Obviously, this would be very embarrassing for most people, but with cultural considerations it's absolutely horrifying.

Also re your point about proving you are queer, again you are on the money. The stereotyping of what a "homosexual lifestyle" (the Tribunal's words) looks like would be almost comical if it didn't have such horrifying consequences. Here is an excerpt from an actual published decision, denying a protection visa:

"[The Tribunal] had regard to the fact he could name only two gay sites on Oxford Street, both of which were said to be very prominent, did not know the name of the main Sydney gay newspaper, and could name only one gay website that he had visited"

I.e., the visa was rejected because this person didn't know gay bars in Sydney or know the main gay newspaper. This is despite the fact my understanding is this person was a Muslim who didn't drink alcohol and had only limited English reading proficiency.

This is a really good article about the problems: Berthelot, Will --- "Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity As A Basis For Refugee Claims In Australia" [2020] UNSWLawJlStuS 1; (2020) UNSWLJ Student Series No 20-01

Wow!

BTW, I emigrated from the country where gays were sent to prison. I am straight, and growing up, I thought I never saw a gay man (in hindsight, I understand I did, but they were horribly closeted). I assume that, if asked about the details of gay sexual life, such people would not know what to say. Another example, a gay man coming from a very religious (Catholic) country, told me he realized he was gay at 11, in PE class. However, he never experienced gay life, instead would go to a Catholic priest who practiced something akin to exorcism. He became openly gay several years after coming to the US. Isn’t it expectable that “being gay” means less “what places people go to” and more “who they feel sexually attracted to”, even if they have no experience with it? And maybe some people never get any sexual experience, in gay or straight group, for the same reason, extreme shyness?

Leaving the country where things are not allowed is more about the freedom to be oneself than to immediately experience “certain lifestyle”.

About atheism, I can say something firsthand. In fact, people who grew up in atheist families and were allowed to feel this way at home, often don’t behave in any specific way. It is more about “not feeling any transcendence” and is more emotion-based than we think. Such people may even marry religious people, or have moderately religious friends, understanding that it is different for everyone. People who are not allowed to disbelieve in childhood, those growing up in religious environment, often end up more “militant” atheists and form the basis of atheist groups and forums (JMO), but the process of walking away from religion for them usually takes years. JMO. More interesting, culturally people who left faith often adhere to old norms (I know many atheists who still don’t eat pork, for example. Didn’t grow up eating it, don’t like the taste, I assume). There is an interesting study, where a careful interview allowed to reveal “atheist inclinations” in about 1/4 of the population, but I doubt that any immigration service is aware of it or will use it.

Very sorry for the sisters. It is scary to realize you don’t believe, religion is a huge support, and to be denied this freedom is hard.