1415953 (Refugee)

1415953 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4281 (18 August 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1415953
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon
MEMBER:Josephine Kelly
DATE:18 August 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 18 August 2016 at 8:51am
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

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).
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Lebanon. He applied for the visa [in] April 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] August 2014.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 22 December 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 applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
SUMMARY OF THE LAW
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.
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).
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.
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’).
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.
CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims for protection credible. For the following reasons it does not, and has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background
The following findings are not contentious. The applicant is a Sunni Moslem who was born in Tripoli, north Lebanon on [date]. At the time he applied for protection, the applicant held a Lebanese passport that had been issued [in] 2012. It was valid until [date] 2014, having been renewed in Beirut [in] 2013. He claimed to be a citizen of Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that he is a citizen and national of Lebanon and has no right to enter or reside in a third country.
The applicant claimed to speak, read and write Arabic and to be a Sunni Moslem.
He lived in Tripoli from January 2000 until November 2013 when he came to Australia. He studied [a course] in Beirut from September [year] until June [year]. He obtained a [qualification]. Before he came to Australia, he was a [occupation] at his father’s [shop name A] in Tripoli from June 2010 until at least March 2013.
The applicant has one married [sibling] who lives in Australia. The applicant has lived with his [sibling] since he arrived here. His father, mother [and other siblings], live in Lebanon.
The applicant arrived in Australia holding a tourist visa [in] September 2012, and departed [in] October 2012. He visited [a city] from [dates in] April 2013. He returned to Australia [in] November 2013 on a student visa. He studied English for two or three months when he arrived.
The applicant applied for protection [in] April 2014 and attended a departmental interview [in] August 2014. A recording of that interview is before the Tribunal.
The applicant’s claims for protection
The applicant provided a statutory declaration with his visa application in which he set out his claims. In the application form, he claimed that he hid in various places around Tripoli from March 2013 until November 2013.
The applicant claims persecution on the related grounds of religion and political opinion and the lack of protection by Lebanese authorities.
He claims that he fears suffering significant harm, namely torture, cruel inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment or arbitrary deprivation of life.
His usual place of residence was [suburb], Tripoli. He is a Sunni Moslem. His parents [and siblings] continue to live there.
He vehemently opposes Islamic radicalism in all its forms.
He is particularly opposed to the current wave of Islamic radicalism which is sweeping throughout Lebanon. Such radical groups include both Sunni and Shi’ite militants.
The Sunni radicals include Salafists, Wahabis and a host of Takfiri militants.
He is equally opposed to Hezbollah and their numerous Shi’ite and Allawi affiliates.
He has been expressing his views in the electronic media, including on his own Facebook account and in various other Lebanese and Arabic political forums. He said that he attached examples of his blogging activities.
Such activities began approximately 18 months ago when it became increasingly evident that militant Sunni groups were gaining influence and power in North Lebanon.
He eradicated evidence of such activities prior to departing Lebanon, fearing that Hezbollah intelligence may discover those activities on his laptop while leaving Beirut airport.
He was first approached by militant Sunni groups while working at his father’s [shop] in Tripoli in about December 2012. They invited the applicant to enlist with them in order to fight the purge of the Allawites, Shi’ites, and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). They pronounced that these groups are enemies of true Islam and as a Sunni he was obligated to join their cause.
He refused to join those groups and reiterated his support for the Lebanese government and the LAF. He told them that he opposes all forms of religious militancy.
His visitors warned him that his attitude did not accord with their views and his duties as a Moslem. They warned that if he did not change his views he would be considered a “Kafar” whom they are obliged to eliminate.
At the time of the initial visit, they asked for money for their religious cause and to provide protection from the Allawis. The applicant’s father had no option but to hand over a large sum of money as they threatened to destroy the shop.
The applicant’s father continues to make regular monthly extortion payments. Such payments are also made by his neighbours who run businesses from the [market in], Tripoli. The entire area is dominated by militant Sunni gunmen who virtually run the city, extorting payments from all the merchants and shopkeepers.
The applicant is strongly of the view that such militants will tear the society apart, “fermenting” more hatred by their extremist views and radicalisation of the youth.
The applicant has also received numerous threats from Salafists and their supporters who objected to his views, which at that time were being conveyed in the local electronic media.
On one occasion [in] March 2013, the applicant was attacked while working at his father’s shop. He was identified as the person responsible for insulting comments made against the “Tafrikis”. He was hospitalised as a result of the injuries he sustained during the attack. He received treatment to his leg and cuts to [a certain part of his body].
He was treated by Dr [name] and released after three hours. He attached a copy of that medical report confirming the date of treatment and injuries which he obtained on the same day hoping to use it to make a formal complaint against his aggressors.
After release from hospital, he immediately attended the local police station where he attempted to make a report. However he was advised by the counter police officer that it would not be in his interests to make a formal report or to take the matter further as that would infuriate his attackers. The police also warned that they could not protect him effectively given the strength and influence of the militant groups.
After that incident, the applicant maintained a low profile fearing further attacks or kidnapping attempts by Islamists. In the period between the attack and his eventual departure from Lebanon, he was forced to relocate on several occasions, staying at various places within Tripoli. He stayed at the homes of a few close friends and seldom returned to his parents’ home to visit them or attend his father’s shop.
Despite maintaining a relatively low profile and restricting his movements in and around Tripoli, he continued to express his detestation of the Islamists in the electronic media, warning young Sunni and Shi’ite men alike, not to be influenced by radical agendas. He also warned young Sunni is to continue to abide by and respect the rule of law and not to hate the Lebanese military. Those views were predominantly expressed on his Facebook account.
After the attack, his father received a number of further threats from Sunni Islamists who continued to visit his shop to collect extortion monies. Fearing for the applicant’s safety his father, along with a local agent, suggested that he apply for a student visa.
He applied for a student visa through a local agent in June 2013 and was granted the visa in early November 2013. Prior to lodging his application, he was advised to study an English language course.
The applicant continues to be threatened, primarily by Sunni militants. He also fears that if he returns to Lebanon and continues to express his political views, which are equally opposed to Hezbollah, that they may also threaten him.
Given the power and prevalence of Sunni and Shi’ite militancy in Lebanon, the applicant fears that the Lebanese authorities will not be able to offer him effective protection.
Militants continue to threaten the lives of all those who oppose them as they seek to assert their authority in areas of their control and influence.
The Lebanese authorities have not been effective in curbing the escalating threats emanating from militants. Politically and religiously motivated killings and kidnapping continue to be reported throughout the Lebanese territories. The applicant has previously sought the intervention of the Lebanese authorities, however, to his dismay he was advised that they would not be willing or able to offer him effective protection and that he should not aggravate the situation by seeking legal remedies against his aggressor laws.
Since arriving in Australia, the applicant has continued to express his political views in the electronic media, that is, he is opposed to all forms of radicalism. He fears that both militant Sunnis and Hezbollah are drawing Lebanon into the Syrian conflict and imperilling the lives of innocent people, particularly the Lebanese youth.
He uses media such as his own Facebook account and also contributes to various Lebanese Syrian political forums.
During the departmental interview on, the applicant claimed that a battle broke out between Sunni militants and LAF in [a] market, Al Nour Square and Abi Samra in 2013, after an incident in Cedar and submitted a photograph of the area near his father’s shop taken after the incident.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a statutory declaration dated [in] May 2015 in which he made the following claims:
·[In] September 2014, the applicant received a telephone call from his father who advised that his shop in Tripoli had been attacked by gunmen whom he described as being Islamists or supporters of Daesh. He attached an image of his father’s shop.
·His father pleaded with the applicant to stop posting any further anti-Islamist comments stating that the shop were specifically targeted in reprisal for his posts.
·Fearing further reprisals against his father and other members of his family, the applicant has ceased posting anti-Islamist to posts in the social media.
·Supporters of Daesh and other militant Islamist groups in Lebanon are escalating. Those responsible for adverse comments posted in the social media or made publicly are severely dealt with or reprisals are made against members of their own family.
·There is an increasing atmosphere of intolerance in the Sunni community against Sunnis who object to Daesh and other militant Islamists. Such people are regarded as traitors and “Kafar”.
·After travelling to [country] in March 2013, the applicant did not know anyone nor feel safe there. He spent five days in [city] and encountered hundreds of Syrian refugees. He did not feel that [country] could offer him a safe environment in light of the number of Syrian refugees, with a large number supporting opposition and militant groups such as Daesh. [That country] is being used as a base for Syrian militancy.
·There is also a well-established fact that [country] supports Islamist militancy in Syria.
·The applicant fears that if he were to return to Lebanon, he would continue to be specifically targeted by supporters of Daesh, who in the past have specifically targeted him as well specifically targeting his father’s shop in Tripoli in reprisal for his objection to those groups.
·His father, as well is media sources, had informed him that there are frequent clashes between the Lebanese military and Islamists in Tripoli, including supporters of Daesh. Such intensity and frequency of clashes is evidence of the growing strength and influence of these groups in the Sunni community, particularly in Tripoli and North Lebanon.
Documents provided in support
The applicant provided copies of the following documents in support of his application:
·A handwritten medical report in English dated [in] March 2013 on letterhead of a hospital in Tripoli – [suburb] about a severe [injury] which needed rest for at least “02 weeks starting March [date].2013”.
·A black and white photograph of the applicant reclining on a bed in what appears to be a medical facility with a bandage around his [limb] and bruises on the [limb].
·Nine pages of documents with the applicant’s name at the top, a date, and then the balance in Arabic, including some photographs, including a still from a video, and indications that some had been shared with or commented upon by others.
·Copies of a further 11 pages of material including tweets in English from various people other than the applicant, some Facebook entries in Lebanese headed “[with the applicant’s name], and some photographs.
·The applicant included with his statutory declaration [in] December 2015 copies of three colour photographs, two of which showed a shutter below a sign “[shop name B]”.
After the hearing, the applicant provided approximately 55 pages of material, identified by the representative as follows:
·Copy of the passport of the applicant’s father.
·Work certificate.
·Facebook blogs.
·Profile picture.
·Photographs of applicant in shop.
·Photographs of damage to shop.
·Independent evidence.
Consideration of the claims and evidence, and findings
For the following reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s claims for protection are credible.
The applicant provided with his application, nine photocopied pages of downloads apparently from some form of social media. They are dated March of an unspecified year. Seven of them include the applicant’s name and a side-on half-length photo of a male who is wearing sunglasses. The Tribunal accepts that the photograph is of the applicant. Most of the writing is in Arabic, but some English words appear, such as “Documents”, “shared”, “edited”, “video” and “[date] February near [suburb]”. No translations were provided. The photographs and videos appear to relate to violence and conflict. For example, [details of photographs deleted]. In total, the entries have been “liked” by [number] different people.
After the hearing, the applicant provided a photograph of himself wearing sunglasses near the [landmark] (the first photograph). The Tribunal accepts that it is a photograph of him taken in Australia and which he used on the social media downloads he provided with his application.
The applicant also provided after the hearing photocopies of five pages of internet downloads dated August, September and December 2014, mostly in Arabic, which include his name and his photograph, however, the photograph shown is a different photograph (the second photograph). The applicant provided translations of the information on three of the pages from September and December 2014. In summary, the sentiments expressed were anti-terrorist and anti-ISIS.
After the hearing, the applicant also provided photocopies of six of the same downloads provided at the time he applied for the visa [in] April 2014 but the photograph of him at the top of the page is the second photograph, not the first as was originally provided. The dates, where shown, include the year 2014.
Before the departmental hearing held [in] August 2014, the applicant provided five photocopies of facebook downloads which are dated [dates in] August of an unspecified year. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is the bearded bespectacled male with the name [applicant’s name] shown in the photograph at the top of those pages. The photograph shows a side-on head and shoulder image of a young male.
The Tribunal has taken into account that the image is a side-on image and the applicant’s claims that that his name is unique, and his explanation about his beard, but does not accept those explanations. Before talking to the applicant about those downloads, the Tribunal had asked him questions and he had denied having any eye problems or that he wore glasses or contact lenses. The Tribunal does not accept that the bespectacled male in the photograph on those downloads is wearing sunglasses.

The Tribunal finds that the applicant provided documentary material in support of claim for protection that he intended to mislead the decision-maker. Such conduct supports a finding that his claims are not credible and are fabricated.
The Tweet downloads provided at the same time as those downloads show no relationship with the applicant.
That the applicant provided downloads dated December 2014 which he claimed were his expressing anti-terrorist and anti-ISIS sentiments, is inconsistent with his claim that he ceased posting anti-Islamist posts to social media after he received a telephone call from his father [in] September 2014 advising that his shop had been attacked and pleading with the applicant to stop posting any further anti-Islamist comments because the shop was specifically targeted in reprisal for the posts.
The documentary evidence that the applicant provided about his posting on social media shows that his activities in Australia occurred in February and March 2014, just before he applied for protection, [in] August 2014, the day his application was refused by the delegate, on three days in September 2014, after the refusal was given and before he applied to this Tribunal [in] September, and in December 2014. The activities were limited in duration and to specific periods clearly relevant to his protection visa application. The applicant claimed that the attack on his father’s shop was [in] September 2014, two days after he applied to this Tribunal.
The Tribunal does not accept that the extent of the applicant’s social-media postings in Australia in terms of number of postings, extent of circulation to others, and the period during which he carried out those activities are consistent with his claim about the extent of his activity before leaving Lebanon, or after leaving Lebanon. The Tribunal finds that the postings were made solely to support the applicant’s claims for protection and had a limited audience. The Tribunal does not accept that they have or will come to the attention of any Islamic radical or group, Sunni or Shia, whom he claimed he opposed.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims about his posting anti-militant material on social media in Lebanon before coming to Australia and deleting it before leaving because Hezbollah controlled the airport, or his claim about posting anti-militant material after he arrived in Australia. In making those findings, the Tribunal has taken into account his evidence in response to the Tribunal’s questions but does not accept that his evidence overcomes the concerns the Tribunal has.
The medical report dated [in] March 2013, states that the doctor examined “[name]”, who was “complaining of [limb] trauma”. An X-ray was taken, “it seems to have a severe [injury] that needs a rest for at least 02 weeks starting March [date] 2013”. The report does not specify which [limb] was injured.
The copy of the black and white photograph of the applicant lying on what appears to be a hospital-style bed, shows his [limb] is bandaged. The photograph appears to have been taken in some kind of medical facility. There appear to be bruises on his [limb]. The photograph is taken from the foot of the bed. It is not possible to see any damage to his face. The applicant is dressed in street clothes, including a recognisable “[brand]” top. [Description deleted].
The Tribunal does not find the medical report and photograph persuasive evidence of the applicant’s claims. He claimed that he obtained the report on the same day “hoping to use it to make a formal complaint against his aggressors”. If that were so, the Tribunal would have expected to see some reference to the applicant having reported being “attacked” rather than “complaining of [limb] trauma”, and some reference to treatment to his [other injuries] that he claimed he had had. The lack of specification of which [limb] was injured and the vague diagnosis “it seems to have a severe [injury]” is not consistent with a doctor’s medical report. The photograph appears staged. Wearing street clothes and having his [description deleted], is not consistent with a person lying in medical facility following an X-ray and treatment of his other ankle
If the applicant had taken the photograph for the purpose of showing it to the police, the Tribunal would have expected to see a photograph of the injuries to [another part of his body] as well.
In making those findings, the Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s explanations he gave at the hearing but does not find them satisfactory.
The evidence the applicant provided about the attack on his father’s shop [in] September 2014 is not persuasive. In his application, the applicant said that his father’s shop was the [shop name A]. He provided four photographs with his statement [in] December 2015 which he claimed showed his father’s shop. Two of the photographs show a metal shutter with a sign above. The sign reads “[part of shop name B]” and below in larger letters “[part of shop name B]”. The other shows the exteriors of what appear to be [number] adjoining shops.
At the hearing, the applicant gave the following evidence about his father’s business. His father’s shop is the [shop name A] which sells [certain clothing]. The [clothing] are from [other countries] and his father goes to both those countries. He and his father worked in the shop. The customers took the clothing home to try on and brought it back if they needed to exchange it. The applicant said that the trade name was [shop name A] and they had a stamp and everything, but the sign on the shop was “[shop name B]”. He had thought of that name about five years ago. His father has been running the business for 30 or 32 years under the name [shop name A]. The shop is in [a market] in Tripoli. Their home is in [suburb], which is about a 15 minute walk from the shop.
After the hearing, the applicant provided photographs of himself, and himself and his father together, including one photograph showing the applicant when he was clean-shaven. [Certain clothing] appears in the background of some of the photographs, including a photograph of his father standing outside a shop above which part of a sign can be seen which may be the last four letters in the word “[part of shop name B]”. No [other type of clothing] is visible in any of the photographs the applicant provided.
The Tribunal accepts that the photograph of the [shutter] at [shop name B] has holes in it which are consistent with bullet holes. However, it does not accept that those premises are the premises of his father’s business. The first time the name “[shop name B]” was associated with the business of the applicant’s father was when the photographs were provided with the applicant’s statement [in] December 2015. The Tribunal does not accept that applicant’s claim that his father renamed his business “[shop name B]” five years ago at the applicant’s suggestion. His father’s business had been running for more than 25 years at that time and had an established name of [shop name A]. The Tribunal finds it inconsistent with that history, that his father would suddenly change its name at all, or would include “[word]” on the sign but not the [other clothing] which the applicant’s father travels to [countries] to buy. The first time that [word] was mentioned in relation to the business of the applicant’s father was when that photograph was provided.
The photograph of the [number] adjoining shops does not include any feature apparent in the photograph of [shop name B]. Although one has a [type of] shutter, it is painted [colour] and the contents of the store are not [certain types of clothing]. The other shop has a [description deleted].
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father’s shop had been attacked by gunmen [in] September 2015. The evidence was fabricated.
The impression given in the statement [in] December 2015 is that the applicant went to [country] in March 2013 seeking safety after the incident [in] March 2013. His passport shows that he visited [that country] from [date] April 2013 to [date] April 2013. When the Tribunal asked the applicant if he had gone there to buy [clothing for the shop], the applicant said he went with his [relative] and has photographs of himself in [city] showing that he was a tourist. The Tribunal does not accept that he was seeking refuge in [that country].
For all of the above reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s evidence is credible.
Because it does not accept that his evidence is credible, it does not accept the applicant’s claims that:
·He vehemently opposes Islamic radicalism in all its forms, and is particularly opposed to the current wave of Islamic radicalism of both Sunni and Shi’ite militants which is sweeping throughout Lebanon such that he has been expressing his views in the electronic media, including on his own Facebook account and in various other Lebanese and Arabic political forums. The Sunni radicals include Salafists, Wahabis and a host of Takfiri militants.
·He is equally opposed to Hezbollah and their numerous Shi’ite and Allawi affiliates.
·He began those activities approximately 18 months before applying for protection when it became increasingly evident that militant Sunni groups were gaining influence and power in North Lebanon.
·He eradicated evidence of such activities prior to departing Lebanon, fearing that Hezbollah intelligence may discover those activities on his laptop while leaving Beirut airport.
·He was first approached by militant Sunni groups while working at his father’s [shop] in Tripoli in about December 2012 when he refused their invitation to enlist with them in order to fight the purge of the Allawites, Shi’ites, and the LAF, whom they denounced as enemies of true Islam, because, as a Sunni, he was obligated to join their cause.
·He reiterated his support for the Lebanese government and the LAF and told them that he opposes all forms of religious militancy.
·His visitors warned him that his attitude did not accord with their views and his duties as a Moslem and if he did not change his views he would be considered a “Kafar” whom they were obliged to eliminate.
·At the time of the initial visit, they asked for money for their religious cause and to provide protection from the Allawis. The applicant’s father had no option but to hand over a large sum of money as they threatened to destroy the shop and continues to make regular monthly extortion payments. Such payments are also made by his neighbours who run businesses from the [market in] Tripoli. The entire area is dominated by militant Sunni gunmen who virtually run the city, extorting payments from all the merchants and shopkeepers.
·The applicant has received numerous threats from Salafists and their supporters who objected to his views, which at that time were being conveyed in the local electronic media.
·[In] March 2013, the applicant was attacked while working at his father’s shop. He was identified as the person responsible for insulting comments made against the “Tafrikis” and was hospitalised as a result of the injuries he sustained during the attack, and after release from hospital, immediately attended the local police station where he attempted to make a report but was advised by the counter police officer that it would not be in his interests to make a formal report or to take the matter further as that would infuriate his attackers and warned that the police could not protect him effectively given the strength and influence of the militant groups.
·After that incident, the applicant hid in various places around Tripoli until November 2013 when he left Lebanon and maintained a low profile fearing further attacks or kidnapping attempts by Islamists. He was forced to relocate on several occasions, staying at various places within Tripoli. He stayed at the homes of a few close friends and seldom returned to his parents’ home to visit them or attend his father’s shop.
·Despite maintaining a relatively low profile and restricting his movements in and around Tripoli, he continued to express his detestation of the Islamists in the electronic media, warning young Sunni and Shi’ite men alike, not to be influenced by radical agendas. He also warned young Sunnis to continue to abide by and respect the rule of law and not to hate the Lebanese military. Those views were predominantly expressed on his Facebook account.
·After the attack, his father received a number of further threats from Sunni Islamists who continued to visit his shop to collect extortion monies. Fearing for the applicant’s safety his father, along with a local agent, suggested that he apply for a student visa, which he did in June 2013.
·The applicant continues to be threatened, primarily by Sunni militants. He also fears that if he returns to Lebanon and continues to express his political views, which are equally opposed to Hezbollah, that they may also threaten him.
·Given the power and prevalence of Sunni and Shi’ite militancy in Lebanon, the applicant fears that the Lebanese authorities will not be able to offer him effective protection.
·The applicant has previously sought the intervention of the Lebanese authorities, however, to his dismay he was advised that they would not be willing or able to offer him effective protection and that he should not aggravate the situation by seeking legal remedies against his aggressor laws.
·Since arriving in Australia, the applicant has continued to express his political views in the electronic media, that is, he is opposed to all forms of radicalism. He uses media such as his own Facebook account and also contributes to various Lebanese Syrian political forums.
·[In] September 2014, the applicant received a telephone call from his father who advised that his shop in Tripoli had been attacked by gunmen whom he described as being Islamists or supporters of Daesh.
·His father pleaded with the applicant to stop posting any further anti-Islamist comments stating that the shop were specifically targeted in reprisal for his posts.
·Fearing further reprisals against his father and other members of his family, the applicant has ceased posting anti-Islamist to posts in the social media.
·After travelling to [country] in March 2013, the applicant did not know anyone nor feel safe there. He spent five days in [city] and encountered hundreds of Syrian refugees. He did not feel that [country] could offer him a safe environment in light of the number of Syrian refugees, with a large number supporting opposition and militant groups such as Daesh. [Country] is being used as a base for Syrian militancy.
·The applicant fears that if he were to return to Lebanon, he would continue to be specifically targeted by supporters of Daesh, who in the past have specifically targeted him as well specifically targeting his father’s shop in Tripoli in reprisal for his objection to those groups.
·He will be persecuted on the related grounds of religion and political opinion and the lack of protection by Lebanese authorities.
In making those findings, the Tribunal has taken into account the independent country information provided in support of the application, in the delegate’s decision, and in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Lebanon dated 18 December 2015 and the Thematic Information Report, Sectarian Violence in Lebanon dated 18 December 2013. While the Tribunal accepts that there is Sunni and Shi’ite/Alawi militancy and violence from time to time in Lebanon, including in the Alawite suburb of Jabal Mohsen and the Sunni suburb of Bab-al-Tabbeneh, it is concerned with the applicant’s circumstances and his particular claims which it does not accept for the reasons given above.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or any member of his family, including his father, has been threatened with or has suffered serious or significant harm in Lebanon for any of the reasons he claimed or that there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm or a real risk that he will suffer significant harm, namely torture, cruel inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment or arbitrary deprivation of life, for any of the reasons he claimed if he returns to Lebanon, from any Sunni or Shia/Alawi militant group, including but not limited to ISIS/Daesh, Jabat Al Nusra, takfiris, Salafists, Wahabis, Jamat Islamia, Hezbollah, or from the LAF.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm for a Convention reason in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Lebanon.
The applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.
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).
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).
Because the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s claims for protection are credible for the reasons given above, it is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Josephine Kelly
Senior Member

[2016] AATA 4281

18 August 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction