1413546 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3567

1413546 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3567 (26 October 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1413546

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:James Jolliffe

DATE:26 October 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 26 October 2015 at 12:47pm

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] March 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] August 2014.

3. The applicant was to appear before the Tribunal on 2 July 2015  to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant’s representative contacted the Tribunal and advised the applicant was sick and provided a medical certificate to the Tribunal and sought an adjournment. The applicant appeared before  the Tribunal on 8 September 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.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.  The agent attended the hearing by telephone.

   Relevant Law

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

9. 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.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The Tribunal has before it the Departmental and Tribunal files relating to the applicant together with material available to it from a range of sources

11. The issue in this case is the applicant claims to fear harm if he returned to Lebanon on the basis that it could be perceived to have an imputed political opinion of being pro- Hezbollah and pro Shia Muslim. The applicant’s claims relate to political opinion and religion. The written submissions made on the applicant's behalf also claimed that the applicant fears harm as a member of a particular social group because of his membership of the wider [Family A] and that he claims to fear harm on this basis because he could be perceived to have an imputed political opinion of being pro-Hezbollah and by implication pro-Shia. That claim is essentially based on the activities of a relative who is a [official] and is  said to be identified publicly as pro-Hezbollah and pro Shia and pro the current Syrian regime.

12. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed

13. In his protection visa application the applicant claimed that he had been born in [Village 1] in Tripoli in Lebanon and that he was born on [date]. He claimed never to have been married, and he claimed to be of the Muslim faith. He claimed to hold no other citizenship apart from Lebanese citizenship and to have no right to enter or reside in any other country. He claimed to have a Lebanese passport which had been issued to him in [2013] and he claimed to have arrived in Australia [in] January 2014. He claimed to have previously travelled to Australia as a visitor in 2011. He claimed to have been educated in Lebanon for [number] years between [year] and [year]. He claimed to have worked as [occupation] in Lebanon  and to have worked as [occupation] from 2008 till January 2014.

14. The applicant provided a statement in support of his protection visa application. He said that he had intended to come to Australia as a visitor and then return to Lebanon. He said that he had been working for an employer about half an hour away from his home. He said the work, he was undertaking was in Beirut and involved [details deleted]. He said that [in] August 2013 an explosion occurred in [Beirut] and that occurred in a known Hezbollah stronghold. He said he was injured in the explosion and that many people were killed and many people were injured. He said that his injuries and his medical treatment had prevented him coming to Australia at the time that he had intended. He said that his brother had sent him the ticket to travel to Australia and that he had arrived in Australia [in] January 2014.

15. He said that after he had been injured in the explosion that he faced problems back in his home town where people had blamed him for being involved in the explosion and had accused him of being a supporter of Hezbollah because he had worked in Hezbollah controlled areas. He claimed as well the people in his home town were also opposed to Shia Muslims and that issue flowed into the accusations that he had supported Hezbollah and Shias. Hezbollah is a movement that is seen to represent or support Shia interests in Lebanon.

16. The applicant claimed that if he returned to Lebanon he would be targeted by a “fanatic  Muslim Sunni group” in his area, and he would not be able to work again because of his injuries. He claimed that, as a result of his injuries his speech had been affected and that he is still scared. He said that his brother was encouraging him to stay in Australia and had paid “big bond money “in relation to the applicant.

17. The applicant’s representative provided written submissions to the Tribunal dated 25 June 2015. In summary those submissions outlined that the applicant is a Sunni Muslim and outlined his employment in Lebanon and referred to the explosion in Beirut in August 2013 and the injuries that he suffered as a result. The submissions referred to the accusations in his home town that he was a Hezbollah supporter and that he was blamed for the explosion in Beirut. The submissions referred to a Syrian Sunni group as having claimed responsibility for the explosion. The submissions said that the applicant was not linked to that group or any other group. The submissions claimed that the applicant had been threatened by people associated with “local Salafis” and that he had received threats to the effect “you are not going to be happy here, we are not going to keep you alive”. The submissions claimed that the applicant was fearful for his life and was relieved after he arrived in Australia.

18. The submissions refer to various legal issues and principles in relation to protection visa applications. The submissions also refer to country information in relation to the applicant’s claims and refer to the beliefs involved in Salafism and claims that leaders in that movement are opposed to the current Syrian government regime and opposed to Hezbollah. The submissions claim that movement has a presence in Tripoli. The submissions refer to media reports about various clashes between the military and supporters of the Salafist movement and its leaders and also refers to reports about the broader political issues in relation to that movement. The submissions referred to sectarian conflict in and around Tripoli and referred to various media reports and a United States Department of State country report on terrorism in Lebanon in 2013 which was released on 30 April 2014 . In summary those reports indicated that the security situation in Lebanon had deteriorated for a number of reasons and including the fighting in Syria and the displacement of a significant number of Syrian refugees into Lebanon. The submissions also referred to the significant unemployment situation in Lebanon and that youth unemployment is particularly high and that the large influx of Syrian refugees had also affected, Lebanon’s economic position more generally. The submissions also referred to the difficulty surrounding rent and housing in Beirut.

19. The submissions referred to the applicant’s particular fears and referred to the perception that he was seen to have sympathised with or supported Hezbollah and Shia Muslims and that he feared harm from Sunni Muslims on that basis. The submissions claim that the applicant would be unable to obtain effective state protection because the state is unable to protect the applicant from radical extremist  Sunnis. The submissions also refer to country information indicating that government corruption is a significant problem in Lebanon and indicated “there is a real chance that the applicant would be denied protection by the Lebanese authorities from the harm he fears from radical or extremist Sunni Muslims”. The submissions suggest that the applicant is at threat to his life or liberty and fears significant physical harassment. The submissions refer to the possibility of relocation and suggest that relocation “is not a viable option for the applicant in light of independent country information” and those reasons include the applicant’s personal circumstances in terms of his background and occupation and his family links in Lebanon. The submissions also refer to issues associated with complementary protection and suggest that the applicant would face a real risk of significant harm if he returned to Lebanon. The submissions conclude  that in those circumstances the applicant is entitled to protection in Australia.  

20. A further set of written submissions was received by the Tribunal in the afternoon before the Tribunal hearing on 8 September 2015. The submissions claimed that the applicant supports Hezbollah and holds sympathies with the leadership of Iran and Syria (see paragraph 2 of the submissions). Those submissions also claimed in summary that the applicant was at risk of harm because he was said to be “ a firm supporter of [Mr B] who [supported] Hezbollah and is known to have pro-Syrian sympathies” and as well  because the applicant shares [a similar name] as that person that he is at risk on that basis. The applicant also claimed to be a distant relative of that person. The submissions in summary, referred to the political situation in Lebanon and the activities of Hezbollah and [Family A] in north Lebanon and the activities of people who support Salafism in North Lebanon. The submissions claim that “according to the applicant, [Family A] in [Village 1] is well-known  for being firm supporters of Hezbollah”.  The submissions suggest that the name /family name association with Hezbollah places the applicant at risk. The submissions refer to the sectarian conflict in and around Tripoli and refer to various media reports and reports more generally about that issue. The submissions repeat the earlier claim in the earlier submissions that the applicant would not be able to avail himself of state protection or to safely relocate elsewhere in Lebanon to avoid harm. The submissions in summary refer to the economic and social and other difficulties facing the applicant in Lebanon and including unemployment and difficulties in relation to finding accommodation. The submissions in summary, also raise the applicant’s claims as to why he believes he is entitled to protection for a convention based reason as well as to his claims to be entitled to complementary protection. Where relevant the written submissions will be referred to further in these reasons.

21. The applicant did not attend an interview with a Department delegate in relation to his protection visa application. The delegate in her record of decision said she was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations to the applicant and declined to grant the applicant a protection VISA. A copy of the delegate’s record of decision was provided to the Tribunal with the application for review.

    TRIBUNAL HEARING

22. The applicant was to appear before the Tribunal on 2 July 2015 to give evidence and present arguments, but was sick and unable to attend on that day. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 September 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant’s representative attended the hearing by way of telephone.

23. The applicant confirmed his name and personal details. He told the Tribunal that he was happy and comfortable to be in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he was not comfortable in Lebanon and referred to people sending him threats. He told the Tribunal that his home village of [Village 1] is near Tripoli. He said he suffered from memory problems and that those problems have been caused or had arisen since he was involved in an explosion in Beirut. He told the Tribunal that he could not live in Lebanon as there was no protection there. He produced his Lebanese passport to the Tribunal. He confirmed that his claims for seeking protection in Australia were based on a perception that he could be perceived to have an imputed political opinion of being pro-Hezbollah and pro-Shia if he returned to Lebanon. He claimed that he faced a real risk of significant harm if he returned. He told the Tribunal that he remains in touch with his family in Lebanon and he lives with his brother and his family in Australia. The applicant is of the Sunni Muslim faith. The applicant is a trained [occupation] but does not work and helps out with his brother’s family in Australia. The applicant had been in Australia in 2011 for about three months and had returned to Lebanon in August 2011. He arrived in Australia on the last occasion [in] January 2014 and applied for a protection Visa [in] March 2014.

24. He told the Tribunal that he could be perceived to be pro Shia and pro-Hezbollah because of his support for a leader in his family, [Mr B] who is seen to be pro-Hezbollah in terms of political opinions. The Tribunal notes that Hezbollah, based on  DFAT country information, is pro- Shia in terms of its activities. The applicant claimed that his father was a [relative of Mr B].

25. He told the Tribunal that he did not attend the interview with the Department delegate because he did not “know what to tell about his story” and said words to the effect that all the papers(about his case ) were not finished yet (at the time of the delegate interview). He also claimed that his solicitor had told him not to attend the interview “if you do not know the story”. He also subsequently told the Tribunal that he was sick at the time that the Department interview had been arranged. The Tribunal found that overall the applicant was very vague in responding to Tribunal questions. The applicant’s demeanour and approach in responding to Tribunal questions suggested that he needed time to process and consider the Tribunal’s questions before responding but even then often provided vague answers. He told the Tribunal that he was not currently receiving any medical treatment in Australia and had last seen a doctor about a month before the Tribunal hearing to be treated for an infection. He said that when he had been injured in the explosion in Beirut [in] August 2013 he had been working as [occupation] on that occasion and his head had been injured and he had lost consciousness as a result of the explosion. He said a piece of glass had injured him and he was taken to a medical centre and he said he was in hospital for about 15 days. He was not able to give the Tribunal details about the hospital because he said he was very forgetful. He claimed that there were documents in Lebanon about his medical issues arising out of the explosion. He claimed he had not undergone an operation but had a cut on his head as a result of the explosion. The Tribunal found the applicant to be very vague in discussing his injuries and his medical treatment. The applicant said he was not involved in the March 14 or March 8 coalitions in Lebanon.

26. The applicant told the Tribunal that he feared harm from the Salafist group in Lebanon. The Tribunal notes that country information contained in the DFAT Thematic report on sectarian violence in Lebanon of December 2013 indicates that  Sunni extremists generally adhere to a Salafi view of Islam which means that they believe that the Prophet Mohammed’s companions were ideal examples of good Muslims and should be emulated today (see page 7 of the  DFAT Thematic Report).

27. The applicant confirmed that he was a Sunni Muslim. The Tribunal found that he was vague in responding to questions about how he practised his faith in Australia but eventually told the Tribunal that he attends the mosque every day and he also told the Tribunal that he had attended the mosque every day in Lebanon. He told the Tribunal that his parents owned a home in Lebanon and that all his family lives there.

28. The applicant was asked why he would be seen as supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon given that he claimed to have been injured in an explosion. He said he had worked in Hezbollah -controlled areas in Beirut and people accused him after the bombing of being pro-Hezbollah because he worked in those areas and had Shia clients in his work.

29. He told the Tribunal that he had never been involved in politics in Lebanon and was not a member of any political party in Lebanon. He said he did not support Hezbollah and did not support the Assad regime in Syria. He told the Tribunal that he had not had any difficulties in Lebanon before the claimed explosion in Beirut in August 2013. He said he was not pro- Shia but could be perceived to be because of his support (through the family connection) of [Mr B]. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his wider political views in Lebanon. He responded by saying that the political situation in Lebanon was very bad and that there were always problems and that there was no security. He provided no political insight on any particular issues or expressed any particular political views other than making the general comments that have been referred to. The Tribunal raised a concern about the vagueness of the applicant's responses in discussing these issues. The Tribunal noted that in his statement in support of his protection Visa application the applicant had not claimed any political affiliation. The written submissions made on his behalf and dated 2 September 2015 which have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons claimed that the applicant supports Hezbollah and holds sympathies with the leadership of Iran and Syria. However as indicated the applicant told the Tribunal that this was not the case in terms of Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria. He told the Tribunal he had not been involved in any military or sectarian fighting in Lebanon.

1. He told the Tribunal that he had not had any difficulties in Lebanon  before the explosion in Beirut in August 2013. He said his friend who had been with him at the time of the explosion had also been injured and also had to be hospitalised because of his injuries. He claimed that his friend had also had difficulties when he had returned home after being released from hospital but his friend still continued to live in [Village 1] and had not been harmed.

2. He told the Tribunal that he had gotten his Lebanese passport without any difficulties and that he had left Lebanon on his passport without difficulties. He told the Tribunal that he had not faced any difficulties when he had been travelling for his work in Lebanon and had not had any difficulties with the Lebanese army checkpoints. He said that the travelling to the work in Beirut meant that he travelled about two hours each way on the roads to and from Beirut and [Village 1].

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims that he had been threatened after he had returned from hospital to his home area. He said he received phone calls. He told the Tribunal that he knew some of the people and they were neighbours who were threatening him and he claimed that those people ”walked” (meaning that they were supporters) with salafists. He said that those people had said words to the effect “we will not leave you happy here and you will not enjoy life”. He said that the salafists were fanatics. He said that he received five or six calls a day and indicated that it was some of his neighbours who were making the threatening calls. The Tribunal overall found it very difficult to get details from the applicant about his claim that he had received the threatening calls and had been targeted. He told the Tribunal that he had not had any other threats apart from the telephone calls and he has not suffered any harm and that nothing had happened to any of his relatives. He told the Tribunal it took him about three months to recover from his injuries after the bomb blast and before he could return to work. He told the Tribunal that after the bomb blast and after receiving the threatening telephone calls that he was “not happy” in Lebanon any more. He told the Tribunal that he had reported the threats to the local police in his area but that the police had said that they could not secure things for him and could not provide him with protection. The Tribunal notes the written submissions of September 2015 claimed that the applicant did not make a police report (see paragraph 8 of those submissions). He told the Tribunal that he believed the situation in Lebanon was deteriorating and that it was not safe in Lebanon because there were too many sects and also referred to the Shia versus Sunni conflict.

4. He told the Tribunal that he could not relocate to Beirut to avoid harm his local area because he would not be happy there and his family would be worried about him and he claimed that the salafists had spread out everywhere in Lebanon. In terms of state protection the applicant said that he had previously reported the threatening telephone calls to the police but that they had not taken any action and were not able to protect him. He told the Tribunal that he could not recall when he had received the last threat in Lebanon but he thought it was a little while before he came to Australia but that he had forgotten the details. He said he had not received any other salafist threats apart from the telephone calls and that there had been no threats to his family from the salafists. He told the Tribunal that there had been no threats to him or his family since he had been in Australia.

5. He told the Tribunal that there were hundreds of members of [Family A] in his area in Lebanon. He told the Tribunal that he supports [Mr B] but that his only contact with him is in terms of the family connection and that he is not involved in any political activities. He said he had seen [Mr B] about once a week and that he lived about half an hour away from him in Lebanon. He confirmed [Mr B] was a former [official] in Lebanon. The applicant also told the Tribunal that he had a “weakness” in terms of remembering details and things and that he gets “hissing in ears”. The Tribunal raised a concern that paragraph 29 of the written submissions of 2 September 2015 were inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence in that the applicant had said to the Tribunal he did not support Hezbollah and the applicant also told the Tribunal that he was not pro- Shia but followed the family leader [Mr B] and that on that basis he could be perceived to be pro Hezbollah ( and therefore also pro Shia). However the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that his contact with [Mr B] was in relation to family issues and that the applicant was not politically involved in [Mr B]’s political activities. The Tribunal during the hearing also raised the claim that had been made in the written submissions dated 25 June 2015 (see paragraph 8) that the applicant had not been linked to the group that had claimed responsibility for the Beirut bombing and was not linked “to this group or any other groups”. The Tribunal raised that claim in the context that the clear inference was that the applicant was not linked with Hezbollah or other groups but the later written submissions claimed that the applicant was a supporter of Hezbollah and a firm supporter of [Mr B].

6. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had been employed in Lebanon working for a relative in what appeared to the Tribunal to be a family business called the [name]. He told the Tribunal that if he returned to Lebanon he would go back to his family but that it would be dangerous for him.

7. The applicant told the Tribunal he had nothing further to raise in relation to his claims.

8. The Tribunal raised country information in terms of the DFAT country report for Lebanon dated 2014. The Tribunal referred to the report and information in relation to the major armed groups that are active in Lebanon and that included Hezbollah and also Salafist groups. The Tribunal noted that the report indicated that security in parts of the city of Tripoli and in Akkar provinces are poor and the report also noted that Beirut remained mostly secure in terms of security issues. The Tribunal noted that the report indicated that the security conditions in Lebanon differ widely but that the DFAT assessment overall was that Lebanon as a whole remained broadly stable. The report indicated that the Lebanese Constitution guaranteed freedom of religious practice and association. The report referred to the various religious groups in Lebanon and the risks for particular groups and indicated that for Sunni people that there is a high risk of being caught in sectarian violence if they lived in particular parts of Tripoli but that in other areas there was a moderate risk in other parts of Tripoli. The report indicated that the risk of violence outside those areas was low and the report also indicated that in relation to Beirut that the risks to non-militarised Sunni people was low. The report indicated that the risks to militarised Sunni people was moderate across most of Lebanon but high in certain areas. The Report indicated that in relation to risks of harm from Hezbollah that it had not targeted Sunni people in general but that movement had been accused of targeting high profile Sunni political leaders and outspoken critics of Hezbollah and leaders who threatened the interests of the Syrian government in Lebanon.

9. The report indicated that sectarian violence in Lebanon tended to be targeted against individuals who expressed strong political views and were politically active in addition to being members of a certain religious group. The report noted that there are areas in Lebanon that are not under effective state protection and that includes parts of Tripoli and the Akkar province and areas close to the Syrian border. The report indicated that internal relocation within Lebanon offers a degree of anonymity and that there are in most cases options available for members of most ethnic and religious minorities to be able to relocate to areas of relative safety.

10. The Tribunal also referred to a DFAT thematic report on sectarian violence in Lebanon  dated December 2013. That report indicated that Sunni extremists generally adhere to a salafi interpretation of Islam(that aspect has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons) and the Department assessment is that Sunni extremist groups have the capacity to undertake occasional, targeted, large-scale attacks across Lebanon. The report also notes that the Department assessment is that low profile, non-militarised Lebanese Shia are not being targeted on the basis of their religious affiliation alone. The report indicates that the North Governorate has a majority Sunni population and that Tripoli is the largest urban centre in that area and that it is a relatively poor area with moderate crime rates. The report indicates that there has been sectarian fighting in Tripoli and that it can be difficult to avoid being caught in that fighting but that the risks are greater for those who are caught in the immediate area of the fighting and that fighting occurs in particular parts of the city and therefore the risks are higher in those geographical areas. The report notes that the ability of Lebanese security forces to provide effective protection from sectarian violence differs depending on the demographics of the region of the country concerned and its proximity to Syria. The report notes that the Department assessment is that Hezbollah does not tend to use violence to address dissent within the Shia community but tends to rely on social pressure and persuasion. The Tribunal also referred to a 2013 DFAT report in relation to Sunni extremist groups in Lebanon and that the military capabilities of those groups had increased over the past year (in the context of the 2013 report)-see “Lebanese army’s defeat of Salafists buys only short-respite”, Carnegie endowment for International peace, 27 June 2013, CX316168. The Tribunal also noted that the north of Lebanon had seen regular clashes between Lebanese Sunni and Shia groups (see “ Hezbollah upsets the balance in Lebanon”, voice of America, 14 June 2013,CX309489). The applicant did not provide any comments or responses to the country information referred to by the Tribunal but later said that there was trouble in Tripoli and that the trouble was increasing.

11. The Tribunal raised concerns that it had regarding the applicant’s claims and his evidence. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided very brief details in his statement in support of his protection Visa application and that he had provided no details about his claimed support of [Mr B] in that brief statement. The claim about supporting [Mr B] had been raised late in terms of the applicant’s protection Visa application. The Tribunal raised its concerns about the inconsistent claims in the written submissions provided on the applicant’s behalf about his claimed support of different groups in contrast to the evidence that the applicant had provided to the Tribunal. That aspect has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that it might draw an adverse inference about the applicant’s claims in the context of the inconsistencies. The Tribunal said that on the basis of the applicant’s evidence he appeared to have no political profile or political involvement in Lebanon that would put him at risk in terms of the available country information that had been referred to by the Tribunal. The Tribunal indicated that it found it difficult to accept that the applicant would be harmed on the basis of his political or religious profile (if he returned to Lebanon). The Tribunal also referred to the applicant’s often very vague evidence and indicated that it found it very difficult to get details from the applicant about his claims and also found on occasions that the applicant did not appear to engage with the Tribunal’s questions. The applicant did not comment or respond to the Tribunal’s concerns about his evidence and his claims other than to refer to the fact that there was trouble in Tripoli and it was increasing(as noted previously in these reasons).

12. The Tribunal allowed until 22 September 2015 for the applicant to provide any further documents or comments or responses or submissions in relation to his application.

13. The Tribunal received further written submissions dated 22 September 2015 from the applicant’s representative. In those submissions the representative referred to the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence that had arisen during the course of the Tribunal hearing. The submissions referred to the explosion in Beirut [in August], 2013 and provided a “medical letter” in relation to the applicant having been admitted to hospital after the car bombing in Beirut. The letter from a doctor at [a hospital] is dated [in September], 2015. The letter refers to the applicant “and was severely injured in his body and his head by a car bomb exploded in [a certain] region, which necessitated to urgently treat him in the hospital emergency due to his medical severe conditions”. The written submissions suggest that the head injury suffered by the applicant are consistent with the applicant’s memory issues/difficulties that he exhibited during the Tribunal hearing. The submissions also suggest in summary the medical letter corroborates the applicant’s claims that he was in an explosion in Beirut and was injured. The submissions again in summary repeat the claims that people in his home area in north Lebanon believed that he was sympathetic to Hezbollah because he had been working for a long time in the suburbs of Beirut that had a Hezbollah connection. The submissions also repeat the claims that the applicant had come to the adverse attention of Salafists because he had been doing business with Shia people. In summary the submissions also refer to the applicant’s mental health and that the applicant appears to suffer from “intellectual problems”. The submissions indicate that the applicant claims to have these difficulties after the explosion. The submissions indicate that the applicant has been directed to visit a treating psychologist or psychiatrist in relation to his mental health issues but that the applicant has not been able to receive a report in relation to the problems he suffers because it will  take a few weeks for a qualified person to produce such a report. The submissions indicate that the applicant is in the process of an undertaking an IQ test to determine the extent of his intellectual issues. The submissions ask that the Tribunal extend time to allow further clarification of this matter and these issues. The Tribunal notes that it allowed two weeks ( until 22 September 2015) after the hearing for further submissions or documentation to be provided to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal notes that it has now been several further weeks since that date and no further materials have been provided to the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s mental health. The Tribunal believes that it has been reasonable in allowing the applicant further time to provide further materials to the Tribunal in relation to his claims. The Tribunal further notes that the applicant lodged his protection Visa application in March 2014 and in those circumstances the applicant has had a significant amount of time in which to obtain any medical evidence in support of his claims.

14. The Submissions suggest that the applicant’s mental health problems may cause him difficulties if he returned to Lebanon and had to relocate or live by himself or engaged in conversations of a religious or political flavour with other people and he may be at risk on that basis if he returned to Lebanon.

15. The submissions refer to the applicant’s responses to the Tribunal during the hearing. In summary the submissions acknowledge the applicant was inconsistent in responding to the Tribunal about a number of issues. The submissions indicate that the applicant’s brother has indicated to the representative that the applicant has problems understanding and has memory issues and other issues. The submissions suggest that the applicant was consistent in telling the Tribunal that he supports [Mr B]. The Tribunal agrees with that submission in terms of the applicant’s evidence and his claims to the Tribunal. The submissions suggest that the applicant confirmed he supported Hezbollah in the earlier part of the questioning and later changed his answer. The Tribunal does not accept that submission. The applicant was consistent in his evidence to the Tribunal that he did not support Hezbollah and he also indicated that he was not pro-Shia. He told the Tribunal, as has been indicated elsewhere in these reasons, that he followed his leader (in family terms) [Mr B] and on that basis he is perceived to be pro Hezbollah and by implication pro Shia. The applicant’s evidence about that issue has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The submissions indicate that the applicant has vacillated on occasions in responding to questions about these issues. The submissions suggest that his mental health may affect his ability to respond to questions “in the appropriate logical manner”.

16. The submissions suggest that the “fickleness of the applicant’s responses suggests that he will be at risk in the region due to his inability to logically respond to questions”. The submissions suggest that the applicant may be at risk in north Lebanon (if he were to return) and he indicated at some stage that he supported Shia people or activities or opinions. The submissions refer to the possible severe repercussions for the applicant in relation to expressing political views or opinions in Lebanon . The submissions refer to the risks for the applicant because of his support for [Mr B] and in those circumstances he could be perceived to be a supporter of Hezbollah. The submissions refer to the Tribunal’s concerns that [Family A] is very large and  the submissions suggest that the Tribunal should see the family in terms of a particular social group and assess the risk to the applicant in the context that Sunni fundamentalists may attack a member of the family because of a perception that person has the same opinions as [Mr B]. The submissions acknowledge that the applicant gave evidence that no one from his family had been harmed but the submissions suggest that the Tribunal should assess the risk of harm to the applicant in the context of him returning to north Lebanon and against a background of his family name, his previous business dealings, his intellectual issues and his claims that he has been previously threatened by Salafists. The submissions suggest the country information indicates that the applicant is at risk of being targeted by other Sunni fundamentalists (apart from Salafists). The submissions suggest that because of the applicant’s intellectual issues that he would not be able to relocate from his family area and that in those circumstances the Tribunal should have regard to the conditions that apply in north Lebanon and assess the risks to the applicant on that basis.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

17. On the basis of the materials and information provided to the Department and to the Tribunal the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Lebanese citizen and that his identity is as he claims to be. The Tribunal accepts on the basis of the information and materials provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal that the applicant does not have a right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that Lebanon is the applicant’s country of nationality for convention purposes and is the receiving country for complementary protection purposes.

18. The Tribunal is not satisfied as to the applicant’s claims that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Lebanon based on his claims and his evidence to the Tribunal.

1. In summary the applicant’s claims to fear harm if he returned to Lebanon are a based on his claim that he would be perceived to have a political opinion of being pro Hezbollah and pro Shia. Those claims are based around the applicant claiming to have been injured in a bombing in the suburbs of Beirut in August 2013 when he was working in that area. That area was a Hezbollah controlled suburb in Beirut. The applicant claimed that after he returned to his home area in northern Lebanon he was accused by Sunni people in his home town of being pro Hezbollah on the basis that he was injured in the explosion and that he had been working for Shia clients in that part of Beirut. He claimed that he then received threatening phone calls from Salafist Sunni extremists . The applicant claimed that the phone calls indicated that he would not be “happy” in the future if he remained in his hometown. The submissions filed on behalf of the applicant dated June 2015 indicated that the applicant had words to the following effect said to him during the phone calls “you’re not going to be happy here, we’re not going to keep you alive”. The applicant in his evidence to the Tribunal said words to the effect were said to him that he would “not be happy in this area and we will not leave you happy” and he said he was accused of working with Hezbollah. Further submissions were received dated 2 September 2015 on the applicant’s behalf that claimed that the applicant was also at risk because of his support for [Mr B],another family member, who was [an official] and is a person who supports Hezbollah and is said to have pro-Syrian sympathies. That aspect had not been raised previously either in the applicant’s short statement in support of his protection Visa application or in the earlier June 2015 submissions filed on the applicant’s behalf by his representative. In many respects the claim that the applicant was at risk because of the family connection with [Mr B] became an important issue in terms of the applicant’s broader claims to fear harm based on a perception that he could have an imputed political opinion of being pro Hezbollah and by implication pro Shia. That issue was the subject of specific submissions in the written submissions dated 22 September 2015 which were received after the Tribunal hearing.

2. In those circumstances the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s claims to fear  harm because of his support for [Mr B] was not raised at an earlier time in the applicant’s protection Visa process. That claim was not referred to in the applicant’s short statement received [in] March 2014  in support of his protection Visa application and was not referred to in written submissions made on his behalf dated 25 June 2015. The claim emerged for the first time just before the Tribunal hearing in the written submissions dated 2 September 2015. The Tribunal after having considered this claim and the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s overall claims and his evidence about this issue believes that it would have been reasonable in that context that the applicant would have raised this issue or claim at an earlier time in his protection Visa application. The lateness of the claim in the context of the applicant’s overall protection Visa application process causes the Tribunal to have concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claim in relation to this issue.

3. The written Submissions dated 25 June 2015 made on the applicant’s behalf (in paragraph 8) say the applicant is not linked to “groups” in Lebanon. However the submissions of 2 September claim( paragraph 2) that the applicant “supports Hezbollah and holds sympathies with the leadership of Iran and Syria”. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal, as indicated elsewhere in these reasons, was that he was not pro Hezbollah or pro Shia and was also not a supporter of the Assad regime in Syria. In essence he claimed to fear harm because of having been caught up in the bombing in Beirut in August 2013 and because he is a member of [Family A] and because of the activities of [Mr B] the applicant could be perceived to be pro Hezbollah. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that he was not involved in any political activities in Lebanon and he did not indicate or  display in his evidence any detailed knowledge of political activities or political movements in Lebanon. His evidence to the Tribunal was that he supported [Mr B] in terms of family issues rather than being involved in any political activities engaged in by that person.

4. The Tribunal has referred to the apparent difficulties the applicant had on occasions in being able to engage with the Tribunal’s questions about issues associated with his claims. As indicated he was on occasions vague when responding to questions in terms of providing clarity around his claims. He told the Tribunal that he had memory difficulties in terms of remembering details.

5. The applicant’s evidence about his claims to fear harm referred to having been injured in the bombing in Beirut and that after he was released from hospital he claimed that he was threatened by people in his home area because he was perceived to be pro Hezbollah because he had been working in an area controlled or dominated by Hezbollah and had been injured in a bombing and had worked for Shia clients in Beirut. In essence he told the Tribunal that he had  received threatening telephone calls but nothing else happened to him. There was a difference between the claims in the submissions about the content of the threatening telephone calls. The written submissions included a claim that the callers had also threatened that “we are not going to keep you alive” where as the applicant in his evidence to the Tribunal in discussing the callers threats said the callers had used words to the effect that they “will not leave you happy”and accused him of supporting Hezbollah. The applicant claimed that he knew some of the callers, who were neighbours of his and said that they “walked” with Sunni Salafist extremists. That appears to be the basis for the applicant’s claims that he fears harm from Salafists.

6. The applicant told the Tribunal that even though he had received some threatening phone calls nothing else happened to him or to any other members of his family when he had been in Lebanon or after he came to Australia. He told the Tribunal that he was “not happy” and “not comfortable” to remain in Lebanon after the bomb blast and after receiving the telephone calls. The Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant having been injured in the bombing is that the applicant and a workmate were unfortunately in the locality at the time of the bombing and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate or suggest that the bombing was directed or aimed at the applicant. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons the applicant was able to leave Lebanon on his passport without any difficulty. He told the Tribunal that his friend/workmate who had been injured in the bombing had also faced difficulties when he had returned to his hometown in terms of perceptions that he was also pro Hezbollah. The Tribunal understood the applicant’s evidence to be that his workmate had also received threats and had faced similar difficulties to the applicant in that regard. The applicant said that his friend continued to live in [Village 1] and had not been harmed. The applicant’s evidence was that apart from the telephone calls he had not faced other difficulties when he returned to his home after the bombing and after he was released from hospital.

7. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims and his evidence and has also had regard to relevant country information in relation to the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal accepts that the DFAT reports that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons provide recent and credible information about issues relevant to the applicant’s claims.

8. The Tribunal after having considered the totality of the evidence does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis that if he returned to Lebanon he would be perceived to be pro Hezbollah and pro Shia.

9. The Tribunal accepts that the evidence indicates that the applicant was injured in a car bomb explosion in Beirut [in August], 2013. The Tribunal accepts as a result of his injuries the applicant spent a period in hospital recovering from his injuries. The medical document that has been provided indicates that the applicant was “severely injured in his body and his head”. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant appears to have memory difficulties and that those memory difficulties may have been caused by the bomb explosion. The Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant, as indicated elsewhere in these reasons, is that he had difficulty on occasions in engaging with the Tribunal’s questions on certain issues and that he appeared to need time to “ process” questions before being able to respond. His evidence to the Tribunal was often characterised by vague responses. Examples of that approach were when the applicant was asked to discuss his views about political developments or issues in Lebanon and in discussing his medical treatment after the bombing or in providing details in relation to his claims about the threatening telephone calls. The applicant appeared to have difficulties, on occasions, in remembering details or in discussing claims in any detail. However the Tribunal also believes that the applicant’s responses in relation to issues such as his support for Hezbollah was clear as was his evidence about his relationship with, and support, for [Mr B].

10. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence that he received threatening telephone calls after he returned to his home. The Tribunal found it was very difficult to get details from the applicant about the contents of those calls and the frequency of those calls and also as to why he believed that Salafists had made those calls.

11. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had received the telephone calls because he was perceived to be pro Hezbollah and pro Shia and that was because he had been injured in the explosion which had occurred in a Hezbollah controlled area of Beirut and because he had done work for Shia clients. The applicant’s evidence to  the Tribunal was that he had not been involved in any political activities in Lebanon. He also claimed that he could be perceived to be pro Hezbollah because of his family connection to [Mr B]. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the evidence surrounding the applicant’s claims about receiving threatening telephone calls ,and that evidence has been considered and discussed,and has had regard to relevant country information. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant received threatening telephone calls as he claims. The Tribunal does not accept that the fact that the applicant was injured in the bombing in a Hezbollah controlled area of Beirut and had done work for Shia clients would mean that he would be perceived to be pro Hezbollah or pro Shia and be at risk of harm on that basis from Sunni Salafist extremists.  The DFAT Thematic Report on sectarian violence in Lebanon which has been referred to notes that many Salafis are non-violent .The applicant’s evidence was that he worked for a family company that provided [services] in Lebanon. The applicant came from a Sunni town and is a Sunni and had not had any previous difficulties in Lebanon before the bombing and was not involved in any political movement. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant was not politically active and did not have a political or risk profile in accordance with country information for Lebanon that would place him at risk of harm from extremist groups and including Salafists. The Tribunal’s overall assessment of the evidence and the country information is that the applicant’s  claim in relation to this issue does not seem credible to the Tribunal in the overall context of the applicant’s risk profile as considered in the context of the DFAT country information and when also considered in the context of the applicant’s overall vague evidence regarding the claimed threatening calls. The claim also has to be considered in the context that the applicant told the Tribunal that apart from the calls he had not faced any other problems and had not faced harm. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant’s memory difficulties are the basis for the Tribunal’s assessment of the applicant’s claims in relation to this issue. The Tribunal, as indicated, has noted that the applicant was able to provide information in his evidence about some aspects of his claims without apparent difficulty. The Tribunal finds that the totality of the evidence and country information which has been referred to in relation to the threatening telephone calls causes it to not accept the applicant’s claims in relation to this issue and that the Tribunal's assessment is not based on the applicant's memory difficulties. As indicated the Tribunal found aspects of the applicant’s claims to not be credible.

12. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims that he is at risk because of his support for [Mr B]. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons the Tribunal is concerned that this claim was raised very late in the applicant’s protection Visa application process. The Tribunal has indicated that it believes that it is reasonable for the Tribunal to assume that this claim would have been raised at an earlier time if, in fact ,this was a basis to fear harm by the applicant. On the basis of the applicant's evidence this was an issue at the time the applicant lodged his protection Visa application and has not simply developed since the applicant has been in Australia. The applicant’s evidence was that he was not involved in any political activities engaged in by [Mr B] but followed him in the context that he was a senior member within the wider [Family A]. The applicant’s evidence was that there were hundreds of people in the wider family. The applicant’s evidence was that no members of his family had suffered any harm. The Tribunal after having considered the totality of the evidence surrounding this claim does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to this claim. The Tribunal has also considered whether the combination of the applicant’s claims about receiving threatening telephone calls and being associated with [Mr B] places him at a real chance of serious harm should he return to Lebanon on either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence and the applicant’s claims does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on this basis should he return to Lebanon either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant's membership of a family group that according to the applicant has hundreds of members faces a real chance of serious harm on that basis when seen in the context that a leading member of the family apparently holds pro Hezbollah and pro Shia opinions. As indicated the applicant did not claim that any members of his family has faced any harm in Lebanon and the applicant did not give any evidence to the Tribunal that indicated that members of the wider family had faced harm on the basis of the activities of [Mr B]. The Tribunal after having considered the totality of the evidence and relevant and available country information does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm as he claims because of his membership of a particular social group which is the wider family group should he return to Lebanon either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept as credible the applicant's claims that he faces a risk of harm on this basis. As indicated the applicant did not indicate or suggest that other members of his immediate or wider family had faced harm in Lebanon on this basis. The size of the wider family and the evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest that the applicant would be singled out for harm given the evidence that apart from the claimed threatening calls the applicant did not face harm while he was in Lebanon and before he came to Australia.The Tribunal also finds that any risk the applicant might face if he returned to Lebanon in terms of possible harm from extremists would be a risk faced by the population generally and not faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal has considered the submissions that the applicant is at particular risk because of his apparent memory difficulties and other intellectual difficulties should he return to Lebanon either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal has noted that the applicant was able to respond and answer some Tribunal questions but struggled in responding to some questions. He appeared to have particular difficulties when asked to provide details about aspects of his claims. The Tribunal after considering the totality of the applicant’s evidence does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm should he return to Lebanon either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future on the basis of any memory difficulties or on the basis that he apparently requires time on some occasions to respond to questions.The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims both individually and cumulatively and had regard to the evidence and materials and submissions provided on the applicant's behalf as well as to relevant country information in relation to the applicant's claims. The Tribunal after having considered the applicant's claims and the totality of the evidence and the information before it does not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant faces serious harm on the basis of his claims should he return to Lebanon either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a refugee.

13. The Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon that he faces a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal has considered the submissions that have been made on the applicant's behalf and that in particular the applicant is at a particular risk because of his apparent memory difficulties and other intellectual difficulties should he return to Lebanon either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal as indicated has noted that the applicant was able to answer and respond to some Tribunal questions but struggled in responding in relation to some other questions. As indicated he appeared to have difficulties when asked to provide details about aspects of his claims. The Tribunal after having considered the totality of the applicant's evidence does not accept on the evidence before it that the applicant would be at a real risk of significant harm should he return to Lebanon on the basis of any memory difficulties or on the basis that he apparently requires time on occasions to process and respond to questions. The Tribunal notes, as indicated elsewhere in these reasons, that apart from the claimed threatening phone calls the applicant had no other difficulties while he resided in Lebanon (apart from being injured in the bombing and as indicated there is no suggestion or evidence that he was a specific target of the bombing). The applicant is not politically active and as indicated the country information that has been referred to does not suggest that the applicant has a risk profile that would place him at risk in Lebanon and including any risk of harm from Salafist extremists. The applicant's evidence to the Tribunal was that he would return to his family home in Lebanon if he had to return. The applicant has previously worked in a family company and has trained as [occupation]. On the basis of his evidence to the Tribunal he apparently returned to work in Lebanon after he recovered after the explosion and before he came to Australia. The evidence before the Tribunal suggests that the applicant if he returned to Lebanon would be able to reside with his family and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that indicates that the applicant would not be able to resume employment if he returned. As indicated the applicant had previously worked in a business controlled and operated by relatives.  The Tribunal finds that any risk the applicant might face if he returned to Lebanon in terms of possible harm from extremists would be a risk faced by the population generally and not faced by the applicant personally. The applicant’s injuries from the Beirut bombing is an example of such a risk in that there is no evidence to indicate that the applicant was personally targeted in that bombing.

1. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant claimed that he had reported the threatening phone calls to the local police in Lebanon but he claimed that they had indicated that they were unable to provide protection to him but as indicated the applicant did not claim that he had suffered any harm apart from receiving the telephone calls. The Tribunal for the reasons already indicated does not accept that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm on the basis of his association with [Mr B] or on the basis of his membership of the wider family. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests or indicates that the applicant would engage in any political or other activities if he returned to Lebanon that would place him at risk of a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in accordance with country information.

2. The Tribunal has considered the definition of significant harm contained in s.36(2A) of the Act as well as the relevant definitions contained in s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims and the evidence and the available and relevant country information. The Tribunal after having considered those issues is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

   Overall Summary

3. 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).

4. 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).

5. 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

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

   James Jolliffe
   Member