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

[websleuth1111]

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.

this is the information I was expecting.

 

[websleuth1111]

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.

You would think privacy goes out the window after death..Who's privacy do they need to protect? Too bad they couldn't protect these girls enough so that they could be alive now? I hope the public demand answers; sadly no one I speak about this to seems to care.

 

[Charlot123]

The more I read, the more I wonder if the Al-Sehli sisters were what “the DM” initially reported - the Hong Kong sisters. Some similarities, especially the fact that one of them reported that she was trying to escape forced marriage. Per DM, it was the younger. In the interview, the girl said the parents planned to marry her off to a cousin, who also was younger than her. Also, both Hong Kong sisters said they were not believers, and that the older stopped believing at 16, and the younger, a year later.
The reason it was first posted they were “Hong Kong sisters”, and then other sources (not the original one) denied it, could be simple. In their last tweet, HK sisters said that luckily, they were accepted by a third country, and their problems were resolved. And that they would lead a quiet life and won’t tweet any more.
Now, to acknowledge that these girls who were so full of hope, died in despair, being denied the asylum, would be too sad and shameful, too, so now this fact is being denied.
Could I be right?

 

[Arboreal]

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.

Hi Charlot123 (and everyone else reading)
After my last "rant" I had a ferret round the austlii database, where the decisions of various courts and tribunals are posted. In the immigration cases, these are appeals against decisions to deny a visa. The first decision maker, in protection visa cases, will be a public servant. That decision, as I understand it, is then given to the Minister for approval. The decision is then communicated to the claimant and their legal representatives (if any) and is not published.
On the decision data base I could not find any cases that referred to Asra and Amaal Alsehli.
If I have performed the search correctly - I tried about a dozen times with different parameters - it seems they either did not make an appeal, if their application was denied, as The Australian claimed - or the appeal decision has been removed or not posted. Or they were not denied a visa at all and it was, as the Guardian claimed, still active. But then it would be over four years after they first applied and that is very puzzling, when the initial decision is supposed to take no more than 90 days.
Their landlord, who appeared in the ABC BB program [links above], said that they came to him via a immigration service. Perhaps the ABC reporters uncovered the name of the lawyer assisting them, but that person was unwilling to speak. In all events, apart from the sisters themselves, their lawyer would have been advised and the lawyer, presumably, would have advised an appeal. The letter advising an adverse decision also contains information on how to appeal.
What we do not know is when their application was denied (or even if it was - all we have is single source reporting from The Australian; and contradictory reporting from the Guardian). So, all in all, the apparent absence of an appeal is curious.
The other point that sprang to mind is that the officials who have to decide if someone is queer or that they are an atheist, do not have specialised training to enable them to, as it were, sniff this out, as some type of human bloodhound. And the way it is done and reasoning, as reported by by Ikarka and the link he provided, reveal a systematically subjective practice that is severely limited by the assessor's own ignorance, biases and mental capacity, leading to humiliating and traumatising experiences. It reminded me of the "witch-smellers". Is immigration law in Australia really being administered by people who are the 2022 equivalent of witchsmellers? it seems so.....
If journalists are reading this perhaps they might take it up.....

 

[bfew]

On the decision data base I could not find any cases that referred to Asra and Amaal Alsehli.

Possibly not the names they are listed on the site as?

 

[Arboreal]

The more I read, the more I wonder if the Al-Sehli sisters were what “the DM” initially reported - the Hong Kong sisters. Some similarities, especially the fact that one of them reported that she was trying to escape forced marriage. Per DM, it was the younger. In the interview, the girl said the parents planned to marry her off to a cousin, who also was younger than her. Also, both Hong Kong sisters said they were not believers, and that the older stopped believing at 16, and the younger, a year later.
The reason it was first posted they were “Hong Kong sisters”, and then other sources (not the original one) denied it, could be simple. In their last tweet, HK sisters said that luckily, they were accepted by a third country, and their problems were resolved. And that they would lead a quiet life and won’t tweet any more.
Now, to acknowledge that these girls who were so full of hope, died in despair, being denied the asylum, would be too sad and shameful, too, so now this fact is being denied.
Could I be right?

Hello Charlot123
I must confess I share with you a suspicion that there is a cover-up going on.
But the question of whether the Al-Selhi sisters are identical with the sisters in Hong Kong, who used the names Reem and Rawan, was discussed and fairly convincing evidence was given that the two sets of sisters are not identical: See
Post #464 and Post #596.
In short,
1. the ages of the two sets of sisters are different, in terms of birth gap and also at the time of their escape.
2. the dates of the two sets of sisters' escape are different - in fact, the Al-Sehli sisters were already in Australia when Reem and Rawan, (the Hong Kong sisters) were in Hong Kong.
3. The Sydney Morning herald tracked down Reem and Rawan. and they are still alive.

 

[Arboreal]

Possibly not the names they are listed on the site as?

I did not only use their names, as sometimes decisions do not use names. I searched by country - Saudi Arabia - the year, 2017, 2018 etc - and descriptors such as "sister", "her sister", renounce islam, atheist, gay, homosexual and so on.

 

[Charlot123]

Hi Charlot123 (and everyone else reading)
After my last "rant" I had a ferret round the austlii database, where the decisions of various courts and tribunals are posted. In the immigration cases, these are appeals against decisions to deny a visa. The first decision maker, in protection visa cases, will be a public servant. That decision, as I understand it, is then given to the Minister for approval. The decision is then communicated to the claimant and their legal representatives (if any) and is not published.
On the decision data base I could not find any cases that referred to Asra and Amaal Alsehli.
If I have performed the search correctly - I tried about a dozen times with different parameters - it seems they either did not make an appeal, if their application was denied, as The Australian claimed - or the appeal decision has been removed or not posted. Or they were not denied a visa at all and it was, as the Guardian claimed, still active. But then it would be over four years after they first applied and that is very puzzling, when the initial decision is supposed to take no more than 90 days.
Their landlord, who appeared in the ABC BB program [links above], said that they came to him via a immigration service. Perhaps the ABC reporters uncovered the name of the lawyer assisting them, but that person was unwilling to speak. In all events, apart from the sisters themselves, their lawyer would have been advised and the lawyer, presumably, would have advised an appeal. The letter advising an adverse decision also contains information on how to appeal.
What we do not know is when their application was denied (or even if it was - all we have is single source reporting from The Australian; and contradictory reporting from the Guardian). So, all in all, the apparent absence of an appeal is curious.
The other point that sprang to mind is that the officials who have to decide if someone is queer or that they are an atheist, do not have specialised training to enable them to, as it were, sniff this out, as some type of human bloodhound. And the way it is done and reasoning, as reported by by Ikarka and the link he provided, reveal a systematically subjective practice that is severely limited by the assessor's own ignorance, biases and mental capacity, leading to humiliating and traumatising experiences. It reminded me of the "witch-smellers". Is immigration law in Australia really being administered by people who are the 2022 equivalent of witchsmellers? it seems so.....
If journalists are reading this perhaps they might take it up.....

Now, my question might be too straightforward, and I apologize if it is so. Mods, feel free to remove it, but looking at asylum laws, one thing is glaring. They look almost obsolete.

You have mentioned that the voted out government was not the most open-minded, right?

So on the one hand, immigration laws grant sexual or religious minorities freedom from discrimination. On the other hand, the voted out ruling bureaucracy themselves might have been homophobic; as to religion, a convert from Islam to Christianity might have higher chance of being granted asylum. Asylum is granted for religious persecution, and atheists don’t fall under the definition of “religion”. Hence, asylum-seeking sexual minorities might be subjected to indignities like that situation with the movie shows. Atheists simply fall through the cracks.

“Persecuted for religion” is not the same as “persecuted for lack thereof”, although apostasy in Islamic countries is punishable by death. It seems that asylum laws were written a long time ago, and it shows.

My suspicion is, by letting gays or atheists into the country, conservative bureaucrats would be going precisely against own convictions, and the laws, the way they are written, don’t grant protection to these groups specifically. Of course, some people are so strong that they would stand for themselves and achieve. But they have loudly stand for their rights, and the sisters were quiet and, it seems, naive.

My thinking is - had the sisters converted to Christianity and announced their interest in getting married and having children, might they have had a better chance of being granted an asylum, under old government?

I looked up “asylum laws”. It seems that “social group” is the biggest area where most asylum-seekers could fit, but their request has to be presented in an “organized manner”. I see very well how the sisters, or anyone without an immigration lawyer, could fail here.

 

[websleuth1111]

The more I read, the more I wonder if the Al-Sehli sisters were what “the DM” initially reported - the Hong Kong sisters. Some similarities, especially the fact that one of them reported that she was trying to escape forced marriage. Per DM, it was the younger. In the interview, the girl said the parents planned to marry her off to a cousin, who also was younger than her. Also, both Hong Kong sisters said they were not believers, and that the older stopped believing at 16, and the younger, a year later.
The reason it was first posted they were “Hong Kong sisters”, and then other sources (not the original one) denied it, could be simple. In their last tweet, HK sisters said that luckily, they were accepted by a third country, and their problems were resolved. And that they would lead a quiet life and won’t tweet any more.
Now, to acknowledge that these girls who were so full of hope, died in despair, being denied the asylum, would be too sad and shameful, too, so now this fact is being denied.
Could I be right?

I’m with you I’m sure it’s them I can’t shake the theory.

 

[websleuth1111]

Possibly not the names they are listed on the site as?

I keep thinking that their names are not their original names, especially if they are the HK sisters I think they would have new names

 

[websleuth1111]

Hello Charlot123
I must confess I share with you a suspicion that there is a cover-up going on.
But the question of whether the Al-Selhi sisters are identical with the sisters in Hong Kong, who used the names Reem and Rawan, was discussed and fairly convincing evidence was given that the two sets of sisters are not identical: See
Post #464 and Post #596.
In short,
1. the ages of the two sets of sisters are different, in terms of birth gap and also at the time of their escape.
2. the dates of the two sets of sisters' escape are different - in fact, the Al-Sehli sisters were already in Australia when Reem and Rawan, (the Hong Kong sisters) were in Hong Kong.
3. The Sydney Morning herald tracked down Reem and Rawan. and they are still alive.

If a journalist can track them down then they must not be very hidden, I wonder if this was incorrectly reported? I would have expected them to have new identities and not be easily found.

 

[bfew]

If a journalist can track them down then they must not be very hidden, I wonder if this was incorrectly reported? I would have expected them to have new identities and not be easily found.

"track them down" might only mean that the journalist communicated with someone who claimed to have knowledge about them.

 

[Arboreal]

Now, my question might be too straightforward, and I apologize if it is so. Mods, feel free to remove it, but looking at asylum laws, one thing is glaring. They look almost obsolete.

You have mentioned that the voted out government was not the most open-minded, right?

So on the one hand, immigration laws grant sexual or religious minorities freedom from discrimination. On the other hand, the voted out ruling bureaucracy themselves might have been homophobic; as to religion, a convert from Islam to Christianity might have higher chance of being granted asylum. Asylum is granted for religious persecution, and atheists don’t fall under the definition of “religion”. Hence, asylum-seeking sexual minorities might be subjected to indignities like that situation with the movie shows. Atheists simply fall through the cracks.

“Persecuted for religion” is not the same as “persecuted for lack thereof”, although apostasy in Islamic countries is punishable by death. It seems that asylum laws were written a long time ago, and it shows.

My suspicion is, by letting gays or atheists into the country, conservative bureaucrats would be going precisely against own convictions, and the laws, the way they are written, don’t grant protection to these groups specifically. Of course, some people are so strong that they would stand for themselves and achieve. But they have loudly stand for their rights, and the sisters were quiet and, it seems, naive.

My thinking is - had the sisters converted to Christianity and announced their interest in getting married and having children, might they have had a better chance of being granted an asylum, under old government?

I looked up “asylum laws”. It seems that “social group” is the biggest area where most asylum-seekers could fit, but their request has to be presented in an “organized manner”. I see very well how the sisters, or anyone without an immigration lawyer, could fail here.

Hello Charlotte123
Thanks for your very pertinent post. I'll do my best to answer your queries. I'm sorry if this is a bit clinical, but i'll go through your note, item by item.
1. "You have mentioned that the voted out government was not the most open-minded, right?" Correct. Australia held a Federal election for the national parliament on Saturday, 21 May. The result was the right wing government (which has some extreme right members), which is a coalition of two right wing parties - a small agrarian party (Nationals) and a larger mostly urban based party (Liberals) - lost office and a centre-left party, the Australian Labor Party, was voted in.
2. "... immigration laws grant sexual or religious minorities freedom from discrimination ... [but] ... the voted out ruling bureaucracy themselves might have been homophobic. ..." Correct. But the civil servants, even if they are not bigots, "sniff the wind" and tend to behave as their Minister expects. It is not so much a conspiracy, in that anything is said; people just know what to do. Moreover, the immigration laws are archaic by today's standards and reflect the law makers views at the time and Australia's international treaty obligations. But in this system, there is not only the law, but the Minister has the capacity to make regulations as well as issue requirements - sometimes called "practice notes" - as to how the law is to be interpreted and applied. So, an administration may not change the law, in the sense of getting an amendment through the parliament, but they can undermine or skew its intent. And that is what the voted out Coalition did. Persistently.
3. "as to religion, a convert from Islam to Christianity might have higher chance of being granted asylum." Not necessarily. The claimant would have to prove conversion. And how do you prove you believe something, so the satisfaction of a person who may know nothing about your country of origin? If you can show evidence of devotion - such as possession of a bible, a crucifix, knowledge of the tenets of Christianity, such as the 10 commandments, or knowing some passage of the new testament by heart, then you have a greater chance of "proving" you are a Christian. But if you run into a particularly obtuse and uncooperative assessor, then you run into trouble.
4. "Asylum is granted for religious persecution, and atheists don’t fall under the definition of “religion”. Hence, asylum-seeking sexual minorities might be subjected to indignities .... Atheists simply fall through the cracks."
Not necessarily. And “Persecuted for religion” is not the same as “persecuted for lack thereof”. Correct. Ikarka would know this area better than me. However, my understanding is that although atheists do not fall under the religious persecution criterion, they do fall under the "membership of a particular social group" criterion. People whose sexuality renders them vulnerable to persecution also fall under this criterion. See: Australia's protection obligations. I would add the following comment. The immigration law provides for granting protection in the case of a "well-founded fear of persecution" and one of the grounds is religion. My view is that this should be amended to include: "religion or lack thereof". And "sexuality" should be added to the list. Just to put it beyond doubt and make is utterly unavoidable as a consideration.
5. "... by letting gays or atheists into the country, conservative bureaucrats would be going precisely against own convictions". Correct. But they are supposed to discharge their duties in a non-discriminatory and impartial manner, in accordance with the law. I suspect many of the assessors are not bigots, but when they act to exclude someone by asking innane questions or using stereotypes (You can't be gay because you do hang out with gays or behave as I think gays should behave) they are implementing the unspoken but understood wishes of the Minister. It's the "wink, wink, nudge nudge approach to perverting the intent of the legislation, by devising and implementing absurd tests. Australia has a long history of this sort of nonsense. There was the infamous "Dictation test". This was one of the ways the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 was implemented. Anyone failing to write the passage down could be deported under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. The test could be given in any European language. So you had a person, say a German, the government wanted to keep out of the country, having to sit a dictation test in Welsh. It was abolished in 1958.
6 "had the sisters converted to Christianity and announced their interest in getting married and having children". From what I understand, that is probably true and there is an underground industry, where claimants do marry for precisely the purpose of gaining residency. However, the claimant merely announcing that he or she had converted would not be enough; they have to "prove" to the assessing officer that they have genuinely converted. And the intention to marry and have children, again runs into the "prove it" problem.
As some general comments.
Saudi Arabia is a political and religious state. Offences against the religion, as understood in that country, are also political crimes. Australia's protection system and indeed, the assessing officers who implement it, do not understand this basic fact (I know this from personal experience). They also know next to nothing about the social dynamics a of countries like Saudi Arabia and the extent to which religious beliefs motivate actions, of the state and individuals (This includes the status of females and the extent to which brutalisation is justified by religion.)
So, conversion to Christianity or becoming an atheist is not merely a religious offence (apostasy: punishable by death in Islam) but it is a political crime and a crime against the family and the person is seen as a threat to the state and persecuted for that reason and a threat to the family and its members. In the five reasons for "fear of persecution" atheism or converting to Christianity amounts to also satisfying another criterion: "political opinion".
This leads to another problem. People who escape a country like Saudi Arabia, especially if a female, are highly likely to be persecuted and brutalised if they are repatriated. That is well attested by the United Nations, Amnesty International and other bodies. The criteria need to be modified to include something along the lines of "who face persecution, physical or mental danger because they did or attempted leave their country of origin". This is not that difficult. During the Cold War, a person who fled the Soviets was granted asylum on the basis that because they fled their life was not in danger. This situation, of people fleeing totalitarian religious-political states is relevantly similar.
Finally, "real chance of persecution" is vague. It needs to be modified, IMHO, to refer to the perpetrators: "including but not limited to persecution perpetrated by political and social authorities, members of their social group, including tribe, family, clan ...."
It seems to me Asra and Amaal Alsehli face three major hurdles in gaining protection. The first was "proving" they had (a) renounced Islam and were either Christian or atheist or (b) were queer. Second, the poorly drafted criteria for being granted protection. These are criteria that do not take account of the social-political-religious realities in Saudi Arabia and other countries that are essentially a patriarchal theocracy. Third, ignorant and possibly bigoted, assessors who know little or nothing about Saudi Arabia and the political and social realities in that country, or who have bizarre preconceptions of how a queer person behaves or how an atheist lives.
Sorry this is so long. Your post raised many important questions.
I suspect that the Alsehli sisters deaths will in part be attributable to the failure of the Australian immigration authorities to resolve the sisters' protection status and the "knock on" effect this caused, such as the social isolation. And that too was exacerbated by the former government's slashing of assistance to refugee services.

 

[ikarka]

This has been such an interesting discussion. I hope this discussion is replicated at a Government level as it raises so many important questions. If you feel so compelled, I would really encourage anyone to write to their local MP or the Immigration Minister (Andrew Giles MP) with their views.

In respect of atheism as a criteria, it is my understanding that the UN has recognised "atheism" to fall under the religion category and as a result most western countries including Australia have followed through and reflected that in their own domestic laws.

The major problem with atheism as you've all highlighted is, how do you prove it? I am an atheist myself, but to be honest in terms of documentary evidence there is really no difference between myself and my friends who consider themselves Christian but don't actively practice. And there's not really a singular set of beliefs that atheists have - e.g. you can't quiz us on the 10 Commandments, or our knowledge of a holy book, or our attendance at a place of worship.

It's such an interesting point about the conscious or sub-conscious conservative bias. I certainly know that our laws are *supposed* to be administered in a totally secular way. That said, famously several years ago our then-immigration minister talked about "fast tracking" white South African farmers who were being persecuted (Peter Dutton’s ‘fast track’ for white South African farmers is a throwback to a long, racist history). I'm not saying they didn't deserve protection, but it was pretty obvious why they were being "fast tracked" while Syrians and others were being turned away.

Sadly, while it is correct that our 'more conservative' party was voted out, at the moment the more progressive party also supports Australia's cruel asylum seeker policies. Interestingly, the only significant party that doesn't is the Greens, and they had a significant increase in support at the last election and a number of pro-asylum seeker independents were elected. There may be an opportunity to reopen this discussion hence the benefit of speaking up if you can/wish to. It is just so incredibly sad that these two sisters appear to have been yet more victims of the status quo when we could have instead offered them a new start

 

[Charlot123]

Hi Charlot123 (and everyone else reading)
After my last "rant" I had a ferret round the austlii database, where the decisions of various courts and tribunals are posted. In the immigration cases, these are appeals against decisions to deny a visa. The first decision maker, in protection visa cases, will be a public servant. That decision, as I understand it, is then given to the Minister for approval. The decision is then communicated to the claimant and their legal representatives (if any) and is not published.
On the decision data base I could not find any cases that referred to Asra and Amaal Alsehli.
If I have performed the search correctly - I tried about a dozen times with different parameters - it seems they either did not make an appeal, if their application was denied, as The Australian claimed - or the appeal decision has been removed or not posted. Or they were not denied a visa at all and it was, as the Guardian claimed, still active. But then it would be over four years after they first applied and that is very puzzling, when the initial decision is supposed to take no more than 90 days.
Their landlord, who appeared in the ABC BB program [links above], said that they came to him via a immigration service. Perhaps the ABC reporters uncovered the name of the lawyer assisting them, but that person was unwilling to speak. In all events, apart from the sisters themselves, their lawyer would have been advised and the lawyer, presumably, would have advised an appeal. The letter advising an adverse decision also contains information on how to appeal.
What we do not know is when their application was denied (or even if it was - all we have is single source reporting from The Australian; and contradictory reporting from the Guardian). So, all in all, the apparent absence of an appeal is curious.
The other point that sprang to mind is that the officials who have to decide if someone is queer or that they are an atheist, do not have specialised training to enable them to, as it were, sniff this out, as some type of human bloodhound. And the way it is done and reasoning, as reported by by Ikarka and the link he provided, reveal a systematically subjective practice that is severely limited by the assessor's own ignorance, biases and mental capacity, leading to humiliating and traumatising experiences. It reminded me of the "witch-smellers". Is immigration law in Australia really being administered by people who are the 2022 equivalent of witchsmellers? it seems so.....
If journalists are reading this perhaps they might take it up.....

now all I can say at this time is that it is not a straightforward case. JMO.

Questions I would like to ask:

1) DNA - either confirmation of the familial belonging; or, if the parents refused DNA identification, simply keep their DNA. I assume that even with advanced decomposition, several hair bulbs might still be collected.

the first question I would test, if I had DNA, would be: were the two decomposing bodies, indeed, women, sisters, and ethnically, from Saudi Arabia.

Sisters? - is a huge question for me. The girls looked “maybe alike, possibly, not”. Hard to say by two photos. Of course, a rich Saudi could afford two wives and the sisters could have been half-siblings, still feeling “sisters”. (But I would not be surprised if only one was Alsehli, and another, for example, a partner).

As to Saudi Arabia. If in two ethnic groups with high endogamy, Ashkenazi Jews and Finns, these ethnicities are always seen, with the cheapest genetic tests, then, high percentage of consanguinity in Saudi Arabia would mean the same: any genetic analyzer would see Saudi ethnicity. So the question is, were the deceased, at least, from Saudi Arabia?

Also, did the bodies, height-wise, fit the description of the sisters?

2) is it possible that two sisters appealed for asylum separately? Not as a “tie”?

3) what was the time period between the first denial and the girls changing the residence? Is it possible that the girls moved soon after their visa was first rejected, thinking of other pathways to emigrate?

Have more questions, to be continued…

 

[Dotta]

now all I can say at this time is that it is not a straightforward case. JMO.

Questions I would like to ask:

1) DNA - either confirmation of the familial belonging; or, if the parents refused DNA identification, simply keep their DNA. I assume that even with advanced decomposition, several hair bulbs might still be collected.

the first question I would test, if I had DNA, would be: were the two decomposing bodies, indeed, women, sisters, and ethnically, from Saudi Arabia.

Sisters? - is a huge question for me. The girls looked “maybe alike, possibly, not”. Hard to say by two photos. Of course, a rich Saudi could afford two wives and the sisters could have been half-siblings, still feeling “sisters”. (But I would not be surprised if only one was Alsehli, and another, for example, a partner).

As to Saudi Arabia. If in two ethnic groups with high endogamy, Ashkenazi Jews and Finns, these ethnicities are always seen, with the cheapest genetic tests, then, high percentage of consanguinity in Saudi Arabia would mean the same: any genetic analyzer would see Saudi ethnicity. So the question is, were the deceased, at least, from Saudi Arabia?

Also, did the bodies, height-wise, fit the description of the sisters?

2) is it possible that two sisters appealed for asylum separately? Not as a “tie”?

3) what was the time period between the first denial and the girls changing the residence? Is it possible that the girls moved soon after their visa was first rejected, thinking of other pathways to emigrate?

Have more questions, to be continued…

What an interesting post!
Especially nr 2.
I wondered why they didn't apply as family, and why gave different reasons for seeking asylum.

 

[Charlot123]

What an interesting post!
Especially nr 2.
I wondered why they didn't apply as family, and why gave different reasons for seeking asylum.

If, for example, they felt that one had a better chance of getting it, given her reasons?

(In the situation that I knew, one woman was in the country, quietly working as a housemaid, and being very young and pretty, probably planned on getting married and later helping the sister settle. But in the meantime, the whole family got a perfectly valid way to emigrate, so she ended up being “added” to the family later.)

I am also wondering which of the sisters was getting and managing the money. The eviction was targeting the younger one, if I understand correctly. Was she the only one on the lease? Interestingly, why?

 

[Arboreal]

This has been such an interesting discussion. I hope this discussion is replicated at a Government level as it raises so many important questions. If you feel so compelled, I would really encourage anyone to write to their local MP or the Immigration Minister (Andrew Giles MP) with their views.

In respect of atheism as a criteria, it is my understanding that the UN has recognised "atheism" to fall under the religion category and as a result most western countries including Australia have followed through and reflected that in their own domestic laws.

The major problem with atheism as you've all highlighted is, how do you prove it? I am an atheist myself, but to be honest in terms of documentary evidence there is really no difference between myself and my friends who consider themselves Christian but don't actively practice. And there's not really a singular set of beliefs that atheists have - e.g. you can't quiz us on the 10 Commandments, or our knowledge of a holy book, or our attendance at a place of worship.

It's such an interesting point about the conscious or sub-conscious conservative bias. I certainly know that our laws are *supposed* to be administered in a totally secular way. That said, famously several years ago our then-immigration minister talked about "fast tracking" white South African farmers who were being persecuted (Peter Dutton’s ‘fast track’ for white South African farmers is a throwback to a long, racist history). I'm not saying they didn't deserve protection, but it was pretty obvious why they were being "fast tracked" while Syrians and others were being turned away.

Sadly, while it is correct that our 'more conservative' party was voted out, at the moment the more progressive party also supports Australia's cruel asylum seeker policies. Interestingly, the only significant party that doesn't is the Greens, and they had a significant increase in support at the last election and a number of pro-asylum seeker independents were elected. There may be an opportunity to reopen this discussion hence the benefit of speaking up if you can/wish to. It is just so incredibly sad that these two sisters appear to have been yet more victims of the status quo when we could have instead offered them a new start

And thank you for your insights, Ikarka. I hope that should an inquest be held - the Coroner has not said yet whether there will be - that it will start a process that leads to a more rational and fairer approach to granting protection visas. The UN protocols and conventions are only a base line. The refugee and asylum seeker community, and particularly lawyers who understand this labyrinthine area need to put up specific proposals for amendment of the legislation and rules. But a first step would be to get a Senate enquiry going.

 

[Arboreal]

now all I can say at this time is that it is not a straightforward case. JMO.

Questions I would like to ask:

1) DNA - either confirmation of the familial belonging; or, if the parents refused DNA identification, simply keep their DNA. I assume that even with advanced decomposition, several hair bulbs might still be collected.

the first question I would test, if I had DNA, would be: were the two decomposing bodies, indeed, women, sisters, and ethnically, from Saudi Arabia.

Sisters? - is a huge question for me. The girls looked “maybe alike, possibly, not”. Hard to say by two photos. Of course, a rich Saudi could afford two wives and the sisters could have been half-siblings, still feeling “sisters”. (But I would not be surprised if only one was Alsehli, and another, for example, a partner).

As to Saudi Arabia. If in two ethnic groups with high endogamy, Ashkenazi Jews and Finns, these ethnicities are always seen, with the cheapest genetic tests, then, high percentage of consanguinity in Saudi Arabia would mean the same: any genetic analyzer would see Saudi ethnicity. So the question is, were the deceased, at least, from Saudi Arabia?

Also, did the bodies, height-wise, fit the description of the sisters?

2) is it possible that two sisters appealed for asylum separately? Not as a “tie”?

3) what was the time period between the first denial and the girls changing the residence? Is it possible that the girls moved soon after their visa was first rejected, thinking of other pathways to emigrate?

Have more questions, to be continued…

Hi Charlot123
Some great questionsthere that I think can only be answered if one has access to the files - and the Immigration department is hiding behind "Privacy".
But my understanding is that in respect of DNA, the sisters' remains were tested and police confirmed they were sisters. Whether they were full sisters (same Mum and dad) or half sisters (same dad, different mums, has not been released). And the Police confirmed they were of the family they claimed to be and were from Saudi Arabia - but whether this was by DNA or some other way, is not clear. As whether the bodies matched the description is the passports, also has not been released. But the police are certainly not questioning the bodies were of the two Alsehli sisters.
In what way did the Alsehli sisters apply for protection: as separate individuals or in a combined application. This has not been released. Ikarka would likely know the different ways one can apply for protection, when one is a member of a family group, a married couple or as siblings, and whether they can be treated as a "family unit".
As for the sisters movements once in Australia, from sometime in 2017, and the reasons they moved residence, that is also not in the public domain. We simply have no idea.
At present we have all sorts of contradictory information. We have The Australian saying their asylum claims were rejected - but not when; we have The Guardian saying they had active claims, which suggests, contrary to The Australian, that a decision had not been made. Or perhaps the Guardian means the sisters had an active appeal that was yet to be finalised. This is plausible: There is the apparent absence of any appeal, on the Administrative Appeals website. This suggests that if they made an appeal it had not been finalised (because the decision had not been posted).
According to the ABC BB report, the sisters had submitted asylum claims by October 2018 (we know this because their landlord told the ABC BB that when they applied to live in the Smithfield granny flat in October, 2018 the sisters were referred to him by Settlement Services International (SSI) as asylum seekers).
Yet, according to the Guardian, at the time of their deaths, they still had active asylum cases and these had not been finalised by Australian government authorities. After four years.
How long does it usually take? BB did not address this question. But I have read that an applicant receives an answer to their initial application within 90 days. And from then they can appeal.
The Alsehli sisters case was not a complex. However, I looked at the austlii database for Administrative Appeals decisions relating to protection visas and a delay of four years seems more or less standard, between first application, rejection of application and then final appeal decision.

 

[Arboreal]

We've discussed just how one proves such things as conversion to Christianity, or that one had become an atheist or that one is queer.
It is perhaps easier to prove conversion to Christianity (though some people are not overly demonstrative of their conversion). This case decided by the AAT, is NOT that of the Alsehli sisters, but it demonstrates what the Appeal Tribunal takes into account:

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conversion was genuine and that the applicant and her family practise Christianity because of the following in combination:
   • The baptism certificates
   • That the pastor attended the hearing to give evidence, and the evidence she gave as to the genuineness of the conversion including the applicant’s regular attendance at church
   • The photos and text messages which were corroborating evidence
   • That the applicant and her husband swore on the Bible and not the Koran
   • The applicant has dispensed with the hijab
   • The Tribunal found the evidence given by the applicant and her husband to be credible and was satisfied they were truthful when giving their evidence
   • The applicant’s belief that there was a miracle

Here is the reference: 1604251 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 4675 (11 July 2019)
I skimmed the decision but could not see any reference to the applicants' having knowledge of Christian beliefs of tenets.
There seems to be an over reliance on demonstrative and preformative behaviours as necessary conditions (must have X for Y and without X you are not Y) rather than what they really are, as sufficient (if you have X then there are grounds to think you are Y).
I saw another case where the Tribunal did ask about Christian beliefs in order to determine the extent of the applicant's knowledge and, I suppose, infer from that the truthfulness of his claim to have converted: if he has converted, so the line of reasoning goes, he will have some knowledge of the tenets of Christianity.
It seems that if a person wants to claim they have converted then they need to do things that suggest they have, such as attending a Church, making contact with Christian people who can vouch for them, and text them; get a bible and ensure it is well-thumbed, familiarise themselves with the tenets of Christianity, and try to remember some particularly resonant passages from the NT, and also parables. And show signs of devotion.
Atheists have a much more difficult time of it, but i guess, you might familiarise your self with debates about the existence of God, such as the problem of evil; text messages, participation in atheist web fora, attending atheist events, if there are any. In both cases, signs of rejecting Islam, also count.
The applicant would also need to demonstrate knowledge of the fate that would befall them if they returned to Saudi Arabia.
A lawyer or advocate helping applicants would, I should think, be able to advice the applicants.
The issue I have not seen canvassed is the punishment and ill-treatment that awaits people, particularly women, who flee Saudi Arabia and other repressive totalitarian countries. The mere act of fleeing paints a target on you.