1411634 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3014

1411634 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3014 (6 January 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1411634

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Melissa McAdam

DATE:6 January 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 06 January 2016 at 5:38pm

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visa [in] December 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] June 2014.

3. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

   RELEVANT LAW

4. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

   Refugee criterion

5. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

6. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

7. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

8. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

9. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

10. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

11. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

12. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

13. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

14. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

15. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

16. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

17. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

    Section 499 Ministerial Direction

18. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Protection visa application

19. The following is a summary of the claims and information provided by the applicant in his Protection visa application:

    a.The applicant was born on [date] in [a town in] Lebanon. He submitted his Lebanese passport issued in [month] 2011.

    b.He lived in [village] in [town] in northern Lebanon. He had [number] years of school education. He worked as [occupation] in a [workplace] in [location] from October 2008 until he departed Lebanon. He completed primary and secondary school in [town].

    c.His father is a farmer and land owner. His [siblings] are permanent residents in Australia. His parents and [one sibling] are living in Lebanon.

    d.The applicant was born Sunni Muslim but does not consider himself a practicing member of the faith.

    e.The applicant comes from a religiously conservative society which is becoming increasingly religiously militant with the influence of hard line Islamists such as Al Salafyene and Wahabiene. The war in Syria has increased the level of religious intolerance.

    f.Sunni militants have increasingly penetrated the predominantly Sunni north Lebanon area and spread hate and intolerance among the younger generation. They have incited the Sunni youth to fight in Syria.

    g.Scores of young men from the applicant’s village have been entrapped by the  militants and travelled to Syria to fight the regime.

    h.Approximately four months previously the applicant was approached by a group of men from his village who asked him if he was interested in joining their religious cause in Syria. They offered him monetary and religious inducements. The applicant told them he is a peaceful man and was not interested in violence.

    i.A number of the applicant’s cousins enlisted with the Sunni militants. The applicant observed two of his cousins’ radical personality change. They were also under the influence of drugs given by the militants.

    j.To save his cousins and other young men the applicant provided information to the Lebanese intelligence regarding the activities of Sunni militants in [the town]. The Lebanese authorities then arrested two men accused of being members of a radical militant Sunni organisation.

    k.The applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2013 on a [temporary] visa.

    l.A few days after he arrived in Australia the applicant was warned by his parents not to return as armed men visited his family in [the town] asking about his whereabouts. The applicant’s father told them the applicant is in Australia and was not returning to Lebanon. They threatened to harm the applicant and his family as a payback for his actions.

    m.[A local official] has also warned the applicant against returning to Lebanon.

    n.The applicant’s father told him gangs have shot at the family home on two occasions.

    o.The applicant submitted the following documents:

    i.A letter plus translation from lawyer, [name], undated, stating that the security situation in Lebanon has deteriorated; that the applicant has been exposed to one attempted murder for political reasons; that he advises the applicant to stay in Australia until the security situation improves; and that the applicant is at risk of being kidnapped.

    ii.A letter plus translation from [an official]  of [the town] in the district of [name], [dated] [in] December 2013, stating that the applicant has left Lebanon and travelled to Australia; that the security situation is getting worse especially in North Lebanon where ‘they’ tried to kill the applicant once because of political and affiliation reasons; that he advises the applicant to stay in Australia because of what he went through and threats his family still receive that the applicant will be killed on return; and that the applicant’s car was burned when he left.

    Departmental Interview [in] May 2014

20. The following is a summary of the claims and information provided by the applicant in his Departmental Interview:

    a.The applicant’s parents and [sibling] are living in [the town] at the same address he had lived. They have not moved. He talks to his parents by phone.

    b.His mother told him that the people who threatened the applicant threatened his employers about two months previously. The owner of the business is the applicant’s [relative].

    c.The applicant intended to stay in Australia then return to his parents in Lebanon. They have no one with them and they are old.

    d.The Salafi and Wahabi people take young people to fight in Syria. They chose him. They don’t have a name. They don’t give their name to anyone unless the applicant joins them. No one knows the name of their group except the people who join them. He doesn’t know the name of any radical groups in his area.

    e.The applicant has [cousins] who joined them and the group wanted the applicant to join too. His cousins have changed. They are taking substances which change their minds. His cousins offered the applicant a lot of money about nine months previously.

    f.People went to the applicant’s father to find the applicant. They shot at the house. They came two or three times. They called the applicant on his phone number even though he had changed his number. The last time they approached the applicant was two to three weeks before he came to Australia. About four or five people came and tried to induce him to join. They want the applicant because of his age. They took a lot of people. They keep them for six to seven months, sometimes they are seen again and sometimes not. They did not take the applicant by force. His cousins want the applicant to join of his own choice.

    g.His cousins went one year ago and the applicant has not seen them again. The applicant saw them four months before he left Lebanon. The people who came told the applicant that his cousins wanted him to join voluntarily.

    h.His cousins were given a lot of money to join. The applicant talked with his cousins and tried to make them leave. They did not accept. He talked with them twice, two months before he left Lebanon. His cousins are [ages]. He wanted them to keep away from him. Their parents are scared of them and cannot talk to them. They went to the applicant and put pressure on him. The last time he spoke to them was two months before he left Lebanon. The applicant is scared of them.

    i.The applicant complained about people approaching him.

    j.The [official] sent him a letter to tell him not to come back. The two letters he submitted have similar wording. The applicant did not ask them for the letters. He received them within two or three days of each other.

    k.They threatened his parents because the applicant came to Australia. They didn’t threaten the applicant while he was in Lebanon because they wanted him to join them by choice. But because he has come to Australia for a holiday they want him back in Lebanon. His father told them the applicant is not coming back and they got very angry and started to shoot and hit his father. His parents did not move out of their house because it is their only house.

    l.The group wants to get the applicant because he came to Australia for a holiday. If he returns to Lebanon they want to shoot him in front of his parents because he came to Australia.

    m.He went to the Intelligence office near [the town] because he was worried about his cousins. He went there three or four days after he saw his cousins.  He told them he was worried about his cousins. He asked them why they allowed it to happen. They said they knew about this. They said they would save his cousins. The Intelligence people know everything. The applicant gave them his cousins’ names. After this they caught [people] but not the applicant’s cousins. Maybe somebody reported the people arrested. The arrests did not have anything to do with the applicant’s information. Nobody knows the applicant reported to the Intelligence.

    n.The applicant was not harmed in Lebanon as they wanted him to join a jihad of his own choice.

    o.The applicant is not in any political group in Lebanon.

    p.He cannot live somewhere else because everyone knows everyone in [the town]. They have a lot of contacts.

    Delegate’s Decision

21. The Delegate did not accept the applicant’s claims of being approached by Sunni militants to join them or to have been threatened by them. The Delegate did not accept the applicant provided information about Sunni militants to the Lebanese Intelligence. The Delegate placed no weight on the letters submitted by the applicant. The Delegate was not satisfied the applicant would be unable to avail himself of adequate state protection should he need to do so. The Delegate was not satisfied there a real chance the applicant would face serious or significant harm in Lebanon.

    Information to the Tribunal

22. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 November 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages. The following is a summary of the information provided by the applicant at the hearing:

    a.The applicant confirmed that all the information in his Protection visa application is correct and that there was nothing he wished to change or add.

    b.He was born in [town]. He has not lived anywhere else in Lebanon.

    c.He reached year [level] at school. He worked in a [workplace].

    d.His parents and a married [sibling] are living in Lebanon.

    e.Last year there was shooting at his parents’ residence and this year, about two months ago,  there was another shooting. They were trying to intimidate his parents. They shot over the house at night.

    f.If the applicant returns to Lebanon he will be tortured in front of his parents.

    g.They threatened the applicant because he reported them. Because of the war in Syria they want more people from the applicant’s age group. They didn’t hurt the applicant in Lebanon because they wanted him to fight wholeheartedly, so they were patient with him. But now the situation has changed.

    h.The problems started roughly four months before he came to Australia. He came to Australia because he wanted a change, not because of fear, but now the situation in Lebanon has escalated. He didn’t return to Lebanon because when he reported them to the Intelligence they suspected it was he who reported them. He was in Australia so they went to his parents’ home. The applicant informed about the two people who would approach him. Many young men joined but the applicant didn’t. So this is why they suspected he had informed on them.

    i.The applicant’s cousins joined them and they wanted the applicant to also join. They like every person to get some of their relatives to join.  There are many people from [his home town] and [another town] going with these people but not the applicant.

    j.The applicant’s cousins went and came back and their appearance changed. The applicant does not know where they went. And then they went again about one month before the applicant left Lebanon and he does not know if they died. The applicant last spoke to his cousins about one month before he came to Australia.

    k.The applicant knows they joined a group because of their appearance. The applicant had regularly seen his cousins before this. Day by day they were changing.  They grew their hair and their beards and somehow went a pale, yellow colour. They talked as if they were lost. Their names were [names]. They were his [cousins], the sons of [relatives]. Their father’s names were [names].

    l.The two people the applicant told the Intelligence about are called [Mr A] and [Mr B]. They are in the applicant’s area and they know the area. The applicant knew them through his cousins. When the applicant asked his cousins where they get their ideas from they told the applicant it was from [Mr A and Mr B]. They try to persuade young men to join them voluntarily. But they consider the applicant has betrayed them because he informed on them.

    m.The applicant spoke to the Lebanese Intelligence about three or four months before he came to Australia.

    n.The two people arrested were [Mr A and Mr B]. The applicant’s parents told him [Mr B and Mr A] were arrested. They were arrested maybe 9 or 10 days after the applicant arrived in Australia. [Mr A and Mr B] are in prison.

    o.The applicant does not know who the people who shoot at his parents’ house are. It has happened three times. The last time was three months ago. The applicant thinks they are connected to the people who tried to recruit him. He believes this because they know his parents’ place and they bring people with them and start shooting. His parents do not know who they are.

    p.They know the applicant is in Australia but they are scaring his parents because they think he did wrong to them. They want him to come back to Lebanon.

    q.The local leaders and [official] cannot mediate on the applicant’s behalf because the people are irrational on drugs.

    r.The people do not belong to an organisation. They are just a group of confused and lost young men gathered together. They do not have a leader. Sometimes they are on their own and sometimes they are with a leader. The applicant does not know the identity of any of the leaders, every time they are different. Day by day they increase in number.

    s.The applicant’s cousins, and [Mr A and Mr B], approached him to join them. It was those four people who mostly approached the applicant. [Mr A and Mr B] are from the applicant’s village in [town], [village]. A lot of people live in the village.

    t.The applicant cannot move to another part of Lebanon because he doesn’t feel secure in Lebanon. The people he fears are spread everywhere.

    u.The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had previously stated he did not know of [Mr A and Mr B] apart from what his cousins told him. The applicant responded that his cousins told him they were calling them for the applicant to join them. He confirmed [Mr A and Mr B] are from his village and live not far from the applicant’s home.

    v.The applicant stated that the two letters contain similar wording because whatever one person knows about him the other person knows. They know the same thing so they say the same things. The Tribunal asked why the letters speak of attempts against the applicant, such as an attempted murder. The applicant responded that this will happen if he returns to Lebanon. The applicant stated the name of the lawyer who wrote one of the letters is [name]. The Tribunal put to him that according to the letter his name is ‘[a different name]’. The applicant responded yes, sorry. The applicant’s father spoke to a lawyer because he feared for the applicant. The lawyer could tell him that his circumstances are harmful.

    w.None of the applicant’s [siblings] have returned to Lebanon to try to solve the problem. They are all concerned about their parents but the parents are old and the people are just trying to intimidate and scare them.  If they kill two old people the others will say ‘oh’. But killing a young man is different.

1. The applicant’s Agent asked or two weeks to put in further information and submissions, which the Tribunal agreed to. As of the date of decision no further information or submission has been received from the applicant or his Agent.

   Country Information

2. DFAT’s ‘Country Information Report – Lebanon’, published on 18 December 2015, contains the following:

   Since 2011, tensions and conflict in Syria have increasingly affected Lebanon, including through the presence of Lebanese nationals in Syria fighting on opposing sides and a significant number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon.  The activities in Lebanon of mainly Sunni-linked extremist groups such as Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Nusra) have added another layer of complexity to instability within Lebanon.

   … [S]ources suggest that Lebanon’s domestic population (i.e. excluding refugee populations) is now approximately 27 per cent Sunni, between 20 and 27 per cent Shi’a, between 35 and 40 per cent Christian, 5 per cent Druze, with most of the remainder made up of a range of other Muslim and Christian denominations (including Alawite, Armenian Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Assyrian, Chaldean, Coptic, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Syriac Catholic and Syriac Orthodox).

   … In addition, conflict in Syria has resulted in a large flow of Syrian refugees crossing the border into Lebanon. As of 30 September 2015, 1.078 million Syrians were registered with the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in Lebanon. Lebanon has the highest percentage of refugees of any country in the world, with Syrian refugees now accounting for approximately 20 per cent of the current population. Syrians now account for approximately 20 per cent of the population in Lebanon. The highest concentrations of Syrian refugees reside in the Beka’a Governorate, followed by the North Governorate, Beirut Governorate and South Governorate. …  An estimated 95 per cent of registered Syrian refugees are Sunni.

   … In broad terms:  Lebanon’s North Governorate is majority Sunni, with a substantial Christian population in the south and east, and smaller populations of Alawites in Tripoli and Akkar Province, and of Shi’as in the north-east, contiguous with the northern part of the Beka’a Governorate

   … Lebanon is broadly stable, but the security situation is fragile and could deteriorate with little notice. Lebanon has low to moderate levels of crime, which have increased, likely as a result of the weak economy and significant influx of Syrian refugees since 2011.

   Since the conclusion of Lebanon’s civil war, violence between armed non-state actors has continued sporadically. Many armed non-state actors have their roots in political and paramilitary groups established during Lebanon’s civil war. The majority of Lebanon’s sectarian militias, with the exception of Hizballah, disarmed under an agreement in the 1989 Taef Accord, but weapons are prevalent and some non-armed political groups retain the ability to re-arm quickly. Hizballah is the most prominent armed non-state actor and has military strength believed to exceed that of the Lebanese armed forces, particularly in the south. Other armed non-state actors include Palestinian paramilitary groups, concentrated mainly in Palestinian refugee camps and communities, and Tripoli-based militias.

   Since the previous DFAT Country Information Report on Lebanon dated 25 February 2014 and DFAT Thematic Report on Sectarian Violence in Lebanon dated 18 December 2013, incidents of violence influenced by long-standing sectarian tensions have decreased, ostensibly in response to successful interventions by the Lebanese authorities and cooperation between traditionally opposing actors (including Hizballah, which has played some role in safeguarding domestic security in parts of the country). Security plans implemented in a number of locations by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and a formal dialogue between the Shi’a Hizballah and Sunni-dominated Future Movement have contributed to a more stable security situation.

   However, this stability is being constantly tested by the conflict in neighbouring Syria, including through the large influx of Syrian refugees, and the presence in Lebanon of extremist groups, such as Daesh and al-Nusra, with an intent to perpetrate violence in Lebanon and agitate the pre-existing sectarian tensions within Lebanon. Overall, DFAT assesses that Daesh and al-Nusra currently have an increasing capacity and influence in Lebanon, and that civilians face a moderate risk of violence, depending on their location. For example, recent incidents of violence linked to Daesh or al-Nusra have targeted Alawite and Shi’a interests. DFAT assesses the potential for Daesh or al-Nusra to launch attacks in Sunni-dominated areas as unlikely.

   … Sunnis constitute approximately 27 per cent of Lebanon’s population. Most Lebanese Sunni are concentrated in west Beirut, North Governorate and South Governorate. However, there are substantial populations of Sunnis across Lebanon.

   Sectarian violence within Tripoli has been led, from the Sunni side, by a range of militia groups operating in the suburb of Bab al-Tabbeneh. As outlined above (see ‘Alawites’), Tripoli is enjoying increased stability due to a successful security plan implemented by the LAF and backed by the major political factions.

   The Sunni community was targeted by a terrorist attack in Tripoli in August 2013 when two powerful car bombs exploded outside two mosques, killing at least 42 people and injuring hundreds of people. Residents blamed Syrian authorities and Hizballah.

   Overall, DFAT assesses that Sunnis living in Bab al-Tabbeneh face a moderate risk of violence given the long history of sectarian violence in the area. Those in other areas of Tripoli face a low risk of violence given violence is more easily avoided, although sectarian violence has spilled into other areas of Tripoli on occasion. At times of increased sectarian tension, Sunnis who are actively involved in fighting face a high risk of violence.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

3. The applicant submitted his Lebanese passport. On the basis of this document and the applicant’s oral evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is a citizen of  Lebanon. The Tribunal assesses the applicant’s claims against Lebanon as his country of nationality and receiving country.

   Credibility

4. The Tribunal did not find the applicant a credible witness. His evidence was inconsistent, vague and implausible.

5. The Tribunal accepts that Sunni militants and extremists have an increasing presence in the Tripoli region and that there is active recruitment of both militants and fighters against the Syrian regime. However the Tribunal could locate no reports of any forced recruitment occurring. Available information[1], supported by the applicant’s own evidence, is that youth are being indoctrinated, radicalised and enticed by money, so that they willingly join extremists, militia and fighting forces.

   [1] See for example: The Wall Street Journal, 2013, “Syria's Escalating War Bleeds Into Lebanon; Sectarian Tensions Prompt Resignation of Prime Minister in Beirut, as Rival Sunni, Shiite Factions Back Foes Next Door”, 9 April;  Al-Monitor, “Tripoli youth recruit fighters to send to Syria”, 30 November 2013; Omayma Abdel-Latif,  Carnegie Papers, “Lebanon’s Sunni Islamists—A Growing Force”, January 2008.

6. The applicant was vague and inconsistent about the identity of the people trying to recruit him, and those harassing his parents. He spoke of them being Salafists and Wahabis in reference to their religious ideologies but gave no information about their organisation or about which group the applicant was being asked to join. He spoke of them not having leaders but also having leaders who changed all the time although he did not know who any of the leaders were.

7. The applicant was not able to clearly explain why his refusal to join did not cause him any problems while he was in Lebanon but threats started after he left Lebanon. When asked about this he made vague responses about the militants wanting him to go back to Lebanon without offering any explanation why. When the applicant tried to attribute their adverse interest on a suspicion he had informed on them he could give no rational basis for their suspicions, apart from him being one of the people who had not joined. Given his evidence he spoke to the Lebanese Intelligence three or four months before he departed Lebanon without coming under any suspicion while he remained in Lebanon the Tribunal does not accept that he was suspected of informing on anyone.

8. The applicant could offer no reasonable explanation why no attempts had been made to mediate the local situation or for the lack of concern for his parents given their home had three times been shot at. Despite repeatedly stating that the problem and threats and danger have arisen simply because he left Lebanon he could not explain why his return to Lebanon would not provide any solution to his and his parents’ problems. He could give no reasonable explanation why local leaders could not offer a solution or why none of his [siblings] had returned to try to help his parents.

9. At his Interview he spoke of his cousins leaving four months before he left Lebanon and not seeing them again, however he also stated that he last spoke with them two months before he left Lebanon. At his tribunal hearing he stated that his cousins left Lebanon about one month before he left Lebanon.

10. The applicant’s account of meeting with the Lebanese Intelligence was vague, confused  and contradictory.  At his Interview he spoke of going to see the Lebanese Intelligence “three or four days after he saw his cousins”.  He spoke of telling the Intelligence about his concerns for his cousins but that the Intelligence already knew everything. He spoke of giving the Intelligence his two cousins’ names and that the arrests of two people had nothing to do with the information he gave the Intelligence. He further stated that nobody knows the applicant reported information to the Intelligence.

11. In contrast, at his Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that he has been threatened because he is suspected of reporting ‘them’. He was suspected because he had refused to join them. He also stated that he informed the Intelligence about two people, [Mr A and Mr B], who had been approaching him and that [Mr A and Mr B] were the two people arrested and they are now in prison.

12. His evidence during his Tribunal hearing was internally inconsistent. For example he stated at hearing that his cousins and [Mr A and Mr B] were the four people who most approached him. However he also stated that he did not have contact with [Mr B and Mr A] and was only aware of them through his cousins. He then stated [Mr A and Mr B] are from his village and lived not far from his home.

13. The letters submitted by the applicant contain information which directly contradicts the applicant’s evidence. They contain very little detail, just non-specific general statements with no context.  The Tribunal considers the letters offer no relevant factual information and it gives them no weight.

14. Given the above concerns the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims are credible. It does not accept the applicant was being pressured to join an extremist group or group fighting in Syria. It does not accept the applicant reported information to the Lebanese Intelligence. It does not accept he is suspected of informing against local recruiters, Sunni militants or other groups.  It does not accept the applicant’s parents have been threatened or intimidated or that their house has been shot at by people. It does not accept there are threats against the applicant.

    Fear of Harm in Lebanon

15. The Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claim to have been threatened by Salafist or Wahabi people or groups in Lebanon.

16. The applicant has not raised any other claims to fear harm in Lebanon and none arise on the evidence before the Tribunal.

17. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Lebanon. The Tribunal is also not satisfied there is a real risk the applicant would be subjected to significant harm on return to Lebanon.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

18. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

19. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

20. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    Melissa McAdam
    Member