8 It accepted that the appellant had suffered some acts of petty discrimination while at school and in the workforce by reason of his ethnicity. It did not accept that his ethnicity was a significant reason for the poor conditions of which he complained whilst a crew member of the ship because the other person with whom he had jumped ship suffered the same conditions but did not share his ethnicity. The Tribunal accepted that in 2002 the ulkucu Turkish nationalists had attacked a café in Kadikoy where Armenians and Laz, including the appellant, were meeting. However it was satisfied that the police authorities acted appropriately in response to that attack and had tried to provide protection to the victims. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant did not claim to have been seriously injured in that incident, or in the earlier incident involving the ulkucu which occurred when he was a student some eight years earlier. On that basis, the Tribunal was not satisfied that either of the incidents constituted serious harm to the appellant in the past.
9 The Tribunal found that the appellant had not been denied any of the basic rights available to Turkish citizens, nor education, nor employment due to his Laz ethnicity. It also found that he had never been harassed or harmed by police or other security forces because of his race. The Tribunal also found that the appellant's failure to avail himself of opportunities to seek protection in other countries prior to his arrival in Australia flew in the face of a genuine belief of risk of harm.
10 The Tribunal was not satisfied that the racially-motivated discrimination the appellant faced and the two incidents involving the ulkucu nationalists constituted 'serious harm'. On that basis, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that he had been persecuted for a Convention reason before leaving Turkey. It then found that the chance of the appellant facing treatment amounting to persecution for any Convention reason (including his ethnicity) if he returns to Turkey is remote. Of course, that was not the end of the Tribunal's consideration. It had to address whether he might face persecution by reason of his ethnicity if he were to return to Turkey. It did address that question. In the light of its reasoning, it is clear that it was not satisfied he had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his ethnicity. That was a finding of fact available to it. That conclusion was reached principally because the applicant would not face adverse conduct by reason of his Laz ethnicity of sufficient gravity to constitute serious harm as described in s 91R of the Act. It is also apparent, as appears below, that the Tribunal was satisfied that the Turkish authorities would not themselves discriminate against him by reason of his ethnicity, and there was no suggestion that the Turkish authorities did not provide a reasonably effective and impartial police force: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 205 ALR 487 at 494-496, [26]-[28].
11 The Tribunal accepted the appellant's claim that he might suffer harm as a consequence of the imposition of the employment bond by his former employer, by being threatened or harmed by Turkish mafia working on behalf of his former employer, as he may now owe a substantial amount of money as a consequence of deserting the ship. It was not satisfied, however, that by the appellant being required to repay the bond or being exposed to that risk, he might suffer discrimination based on his race or for any other Convention reason. Moreover, the Tribunal did not accept that the Turkish authorities in any way would condone any improper action by the mafia, or would do so for a Convention reason. It found the applicant had never been harassed or harmed by the Turkish authorities by reason of his race, and it accepted that in fact Laz people are not discriminated against by the authorities nor subject to undue official pressure.
12 The Tribunal lastly considered the appellant's claims relating to an inability to express his religious and political views on account of his Laz ethnicity. It found these claims were expressed by the appellant to the Tribunal in such vague terms that it was not credible that he had any strong views about religion or politics. The Tribunal did not accept that he had any views that could not be expressed freely in Turkey.
13 Its conclusion was that any chance that the appellant might face persecution for a Convention reason was remote and any fear of persecution for a Convention reason not well-founded. That conclusion indicates that the Tribunal correctly addressed the issue required to be addressed by s 36(2) of the Act.