1416343 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3536

1416343 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3536 (7 March 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1416343

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:7 March 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 07 March 2016 at 11:52am

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 applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Background, Claims and Evidence

   The Applicant

2. The first named applicant (the applicant) is a citizen of Lebanon. He travelled to Australia on a passport issued in his own name in [2007], holding a [temporary] visa. He applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) for a protection visa [in] October 2010 (the first application).

3. In his first application, the applicant essentially claimed that he started experiencing serious problems in Lebanon when he fell in love with a girl ([Ms A]) whose parents would not accept him because of his financial circumstances. He applied for a visa to come to Australia in order to sponsor [Ms A] to join him here. [Ms A] was allowed to come to Australia to visit her [sibling] but she was told not to see the applicant. When she returned to Lebanon and her family discovered that she had been seeing the applicant she was locked in her room with no food for two weeks. The applicant claimed to fear harm by his girlfriend’s parents, who have connections. He stated that they come from a traditional area where families play a major role. His family and his girlfriend’s family are both well-known and powerful and any clash might have serious consequences.

4. The applicant was interviewed in relation to his application by an officer of the Department [in] February 2011 (the first interview). Where relevant, the applicant’s evidence at that interview is discussed below.

5. The delegate refused the application on the basis that there was no Convention reason for the harm feared. He found that the harm was directed at the applicant by his girlfriend’s family because they did not approve of the relationship as he was not financially well off.

6. The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. He appeared before the then Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) on 18 May 2011 to give evidence and present arguments (the first hearing). Where relevant, the applicant’s evidence at the first hearing is discussed below.

7. At the first hearing the applicant also presented a number of original documents in Arabic, with English translations done by an accredited translator. The documents were:

   ·‘Affidavit’ dated [in] April 2011 signed by [name], [official] of the Municipality of [name], stating that “based on a report from the security forces and based on a request by another security agency”, he advises the applicant not to come to Lebanon because “the circumstances have no guaranteed results and we do not know in which direction the circumstances are leading up”;

   ·Undated letter from the [official] of the town of [name], in identical terms to the above; 

   ·Three summonses ‘For the defendant in front of the investigating judge’, all under Summons number [number], addressed to the applicant, requiring him to attend at court to present his defence in the case brought by [name] in the issue of [event], on [date] September 2009, [date] March 2010 and [date] March 2011.

8. The RRT affirmed the decision under review and the applicant’s subsequent applications to the then Federal Magistrates Court and the Full Federal Court for a review of the RRT’s decision were dismissed. His request for Ministerial Intervention was not successful.

   [Ms A]

9. [Ms A], a citizen of Lebanon, applied to the Department for a protection visa [in] May 2012 ([Ms A]’s application). In a statement attached to that application she claimed to have been pressured by her family to marry her [first] cousin. The cousin and his parents resided in the same building that housed the applicant and her family. The applicant, however, fell in love with a neighbour (the applicant). The applicant was ‘harmed’ by [Ms A]’s uncle and subsequently escaped to Australia. [Ms A] visited Australia in December 2009 and during that trip she and the applicant read the fatiha together to make their relationship ‘legal’. Before her most recent trip to Australia she was ‘forced’ to marry he cousin, but she made a promise to enter the marriage only after her return from Australia. Her family are now aware of her relationship with the applicant in Australia. If she were to return to Lebanon she will be subjected to ‘domestic violence, forced marriage and possible death’ by members of her family, particularly her uncle.

10. [Ms A] was interviewed in relation to her application by an officer of the Department [in] July 2012 ([Ms A]’s interview). The delegate subsequently refused the application and [Ms A] applied for a review of that decision to the RRT. [Ms A] did not attend her scheduled hearing and the RRT affirmed the delegate’s decision on 7 June 2013.

    Further protection visa applications

11. The applicant, [Ms A] and their [child], [name], who was born in Australia on [date], applied for protection visas [in] April 2014 (second application). They all filled out their own ‘application for a person who wishes to submit their own claims’. However, in response to questions relating to their reasons for claiming protection, they each stated ‘refer to attached statement’. No statement authored by the applicant or prepared specifically on behalf of the applicant [child] was provided to the Department. The Departmental file, however, contains a single statement by [Ms A]. In this statement [Ms A] made the following claims:

12. She met the applicant when she was a teenager. They fell in love and decided to get married, but when their parents found out it ‘caused a lot of problems as the [two] families did not like each other’. Her parents then wanted to force her to marry her cousin and she kept refusing. The applicant came to Australia because her family wanted to harm him. She continued her studies until 2009 when her [sibling] applied for her to come to Australia on a [temporary] visa. She went back to Lebanon after 3 months and worked as [occupation]. She returned to Australia 2 years later.

13. When she came back to Australia she contacted the applicant. They started seeing each other ‘behind the families back’. After 3 months they decided to get married. She informed her [siblings] who reside in [City 1]. They told her that they did not agree with the arrangement because they were scared of the troubles that this would cause between her family and the applicant’s family in Lebanon. When they kept refusing her permission to get married she ran away from her [sibling]'s house to stay with the applicant. This caused ‘a lot of trouble’ within the family and her [siblings] became concerned that her parents would find out that she has run away from home. As a single Muslim girl she was meant to be under the responsibility of her [siblings]. They subsequently agreed that if she returned home they would allow her to marry the applicant ‘in the proper way’. Her marriage ‘was to be a secret’ from her parents, as well as the applicant’s parents.

14. After they got married someone informed their families in Lebanon and ‘trouble started happening within the family overseas’. They started receiving threats from both sides of the family that if they did not get a divorce her parents would send someone to kill the applicant. After she fell pregnant their families thought that she would return to Lebanon and get a divorce. They wanted the applicant to remarry in order to take her child away from her.

15. As a result of these problems she became very sick and depressed. She is fearful that her husband’s family would take her [child] away from her. She is also she afraid that if she were to take her [child] to Lebanon [the child] will get sick or die because [the child] is not used to ‘the habitat in Lebanon and the war’. If she were to return to Lebanon she will kill herself as she cannot handle her [child] been taken away from her nor can she handle [the child] growing up ‘in an atmosphere that is unhealthy’.

16. The applicant also submitted to the department the documents he had previously submitted to the RRT (see paragraph 7), as well as a copy and translation of an email message sent from [address deleted]mailto: to [address deleted].mailto: The message, which is purportedly from [Ms A]’s parents to [Ms A], essentially states that [Ms A] and her husband would die if they return to Lebanon and that the applicant’s father will seek revenge by killing the applicant [child].

17. [Ms A]’s application was deemed invalid by the Department due to the operation of s.48A bar. However, it appears that following the decision of the Full Federal Court in SZGIZ v MIAC (2013) 212 FCR 235, the applicant’s application was considered to be valid.

18. The applicant attended a departmental interview in connection with his second application [in] August 2014 (the second interview). Where relevant, the applicant’s evidence at that interview is discussed below.

19. The delegate decided to refuse to grant a protection visa. She did not accept that [Ms A]’s family have threatened to kill the applicant, [Ms A] and their [child].

20. The applicant and the applicant [child] applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. They were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

21. The applicant appeared before the present Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 1 September 2015 to give evidence and present arguments (the second hearing). The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Ms A]. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence at the second hearing is referred to below.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

22. 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.

23. 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).

24. 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.

25. Section 48A imposes a bar on a non-citizen making a further application for a protection visa while in the migration zone in circumstances where the non-citizen has made an application for a protection visa which has been refused. The Full Federal Court in SZGIZ v MIAC (2013) 212 FCR 235 has held at [38] that the operation of s.48A, as it stood at the time of this visa application, is confined to the making of a further application for a protection visa which duplicates an earlier unsuccessful application for a protection visa, in the sense that both applications raise the same essential criterion for the grant of a protection visa.

26. Applying the reasoning in SZGIZ v MIAC (2013) 212 FCR 235, the Tribunal finds that it does not have power to consider the Refugee Convention criterion in s.36(2)(a), and has proceeded on the basis that it can only consider the applicant’s claims under the Complementary Protection provisions in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

27. 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’).

28. 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. The Tribunal has had regard to the DFAT Country Report Lebanon (published on 25 February 2014); the DFAT Thematic Report-Sectarian Violence in Lebanon (published on 18 December 2013); and DFAT Country Report Lebanon (published on 18 December 2015).

    Analysis, Findings and Reasons

29. The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible and truthful witness and has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has had regard to various inconsistencies in his evidence throughout the process, the unpersuasive nature of some key aspects of his claims and other reasons detailed below. 

30. First, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to the circumstances surrounding his reunion and interactions with [Ms A] in Australia.

31. As noted above, in his first application the applicant claimed that his problems started when he fell in love with [Ms A], whose parents would not accept him because of his financial circumstances. He then applied for a visa to come to Australia hoping to be able to sponsor [Ms A] to join him here. [Ms A] was allowed to come to Australia to visit her [sibling] but she was told not to see the applicant. When she returned to Lebanon and her family discovered that she had been seeing the applicant she was locked in her room with no food for two weeks. The applicant claimed that he fears returning to Lebanon because he would be harmed by [Ms A]’s parents, who have connections.

32. At his first interview the applicant stated that, when [Ms A] first visited Australia in 2009, her family did not know that he and [Ms A] were seeing each other. While [Ms A] had denied that her family had any knowledge of the relationship or that there were any problems following her visit to Australia, the applicant’s cousin had told him that [Ms A] was locked in her room and beaten.

33. At his second interview [in] August 2014, the applicant provided an entirely new account, stating that when [Ms A] visited Australia in 2009 he was in [city], but his friend’s wife facilitated telephone communication between him (the applicant) and [Ms A].

34. At the second hearing held [in] September 2015, the applicant again provided different evidence stating that when [Ms A] first visited Australia he did not see her because he was working in [city] at that time, but they were able to speak to each other over the telephone. He stated that after [Ms A] returned to Lebanon her family found out that she had spoken to the applicant by phone on a couple of occasions and they locked her in her room.

35. At the second hearing the Tribunal also took evidence from [Ms A]. She stated that when she first came to Australia in 2009 she met with the applicant on approximately 5 occasions. She stated that at that time the applicant lived in [City 1] but in a different area. She further stated that after she returned to Lebanon her family might have known about these meetings but nothing happened to her and she suffered no consequences.

36. In her application for a protection visa, lodged [in] May 2012, [Ms A] provided evidence that are inconsistent with the applicant’s claims and her own evidence at the second hearing.  In that application she claimed that during her first visit to Australia she was reunited with the applicant and ‘we had the fatiha together so our relationship became legal’.

37. The information the applicant provided in his first application for a protection visa, his oral evidence at the first interview, his oral evidence at the second interview, [Ms A]’s evidence at the second hearing and [Ms A]’s written claims in connection with her own application for a protection visa were put to the applicant in a s.424A letter. The applicant responded by stating that ‘the incident’ took place a long time ago in 2009 and he cannot remember all the details or even his past experience. He stated that he and [Ms A] had provided inconsistent evidence because [Ms A] ‘tries to forget her past which was difficult and she experienced a lot of suffering and she is mentally traumatized’ (sic). He stated that [Ms A] wants to forget everything and carry on with her life. He further stated that [Ms A]’s ‘Arabic background’ prevents her from mentioning any punishment directed at her by her parents as this would be disrespectful to her parents. The Tribunal finds these explanations unsatisfactory in addressing the various inconsistencies and concerns set out above. The applicant’s and [Ms A]’s evidence casts serious doubt on the truth of their claims and their credibility. 

38. Second, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to how [Ms A]’s family had reacted to his relationship with [Ms A]. Aspects of the applicant’s evidence was also inconsistent with [Ms A]’s evidence.

39. In support of his second application for a protection visa, the applicant submitted a statement by [Ms A], dated [in] March 2014. In that statement she stated that both her family and the applicant’s family were opposed to their relationship. She stated that when she came back to Australia in 2012 she contacted the applicant and they started seeing each other ‘behind the families back’. After 3 months they decided to get married. [Ms A] informed her [siblings] who reside in [City 1]. They told her that they did not agree with the arrangement because they were scared of the troubles that this would cause between her family and the applicant’s family in Lebanon. When they kept refusing her permission to get married she ran away from her [sibling]'s house to stay with the applicant. This caused ‘a lot of trouble’ within the family and her [siblings] became concerned that her parents would find out that she has run away from home. Her [siblings] subsequently agreed that if she returned home they would allow her to marry the applicant ‘in the proper way’. Her marriage ‘was to be a secret’ from her parents, as well as the applicant’s parents. After the applicant and [Ms A] got married someone informed their respective families in Lebanon and ‘trouble started happening within the family overseas’. The applicant started receiving threats from both sides of the family that if he did not get a divorce her parents would send someone to kill him.

1. This evidence, however, is inconsistent with the evidence the applicant provided to the Department at the second interview and to the Tribunal at the second hearing to the effect that while his family may disapprove of [Ms A], they have no intention of harming him or her. He stated that they have not threatened him and that his mother had attended their wedding in [City 1]. The applicant stated at the second interview that he and [Ms A]’s [siblings] made arrangements to bring [Ms A] here in order for the applicant to marry her. He stated that he had cut ties with his family in Lebanon after the birth of the applicant [child] because he (the applicant) had taken offence to certain things his mother had said to him. The applicant confirmed at the second hearing that when [Ms A] came to Australia on the second occasion in 2012, her trip was arranged by her [sibling] who was completely supportive of the relationship and wanted to facilitate the applicant’s marriage to [his/her] sister. The applicant stated that before the wedding, [Ms A] had stayed with her [siblings] and not with him and that she had not left her [siblings] without their permission to go to the applicant.

2. The information the applicant had provided in his second interview and [Ms A]’s written statement to the Department were put to the applicant in a s.424A letter. The applicant responded by providing yet another version of events. He stated that [Ms A’s sibling] had agreed to bring [Ms A] to Australia for a visit and to meet the applicant in person. He wanted them to get to know each other and start a relationship. However, after [Ms A] arrived in Australia he could not travel to [City 1] to meet her so they kept in touch through phone calls. After they fell in love and started their relationship, her [sibling] changed [his/her] mind about the relationship. Nevertheless, the applicant and [Ms A] planned to go ahead and get married without the family’s blessings. He added that his ‘[the sibling] knew about our intentions therefore before we ran away [he/she] finally agree’ (sic). The Tribunal is unable to reconcile the various inconsistencies in the evidence and has significant doubts in relation to the truth of the claims put forward.

3. Third, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his claimed past experiences of harm at the hands of [Ms A]’s family members.

4. In his first interview, the applicant stated that as a result of his relationship with [Ms A] he was beaten by [Ms A]’s [siblings] and uncles in Lebanon. At the first hearing, however, he claimed that six or seven months before he came to Australia he started a sexual relationship with [Ms A] and her family immediately found out. On one occasion when he and [Ms A] were on the roof of [Ms A]’s house, they were ‘surprised’ by [Ms A]’s uncle and her brother. The applicant escaped but when he returned to his own house a few days later, [Ms A]’s uncle and brother attacked him with a stick. This information is inconsistent with the information the applicant provided in connection with his second application. He stated at both his second interview and the second hearing that his sexual relationship with [Ms A] was discovered by her uncle only. At the second hearing he expressly denied that any of [Ms A]’s [siblings] were involved in attacking or assaulting him in Lebanon or anywhere else. When the inconsistencies in his evidence were put to him at the second hearing, he stated that they attempted to assault him several times, but they succeeded only once. He added that he had served in the military with one of [Ms A]’s [brothers].

5. The applicant’s oral evidence at the first interview, his oral evidence at the second interview, and his evidence at the first hearing were put to him in the Tribunal's s.424A letter. The applicant responded by providing a different account. He stated that when he was assaulted in Lebanon, [Ms A]’s uncle and her brother were both present, but only her uncle attacked and assaulted him. The applicant’s explanations exacerbate the Tribunal's concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant's evidence is unreliable and lacking in credibility.

6. Fourth, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his own circumstances prior to his departure from Lebanon.

7. At the first hearing, the applicant stated that after being attacked and assaulted by [Ms A]’s relatives he did not work for two to three months because of his injuries, but later he returned to work with his uncle prior to coming to Australia. At the second hearing, however, he stated that after the attack he did not work until he came to Australia. In his response to the Tribunal's s.424A letter, the applicant stated that he cannot remember if he worked or not after ‘the incident’. He recalls, however, that he took time off from his work to recover and that he relocated to [city] to live with his uncle. The Tribunal finds this explanation unsatisfactory. The applicant’s evidence casts doubt on the veracity of his claims.

8. Finally, the applicant arrived in Australia in November 2007, but he did not apply for a protection visa until October 2010. At the second hearing, the applicant stated that when he came to Australia he was scared and he thought the police were like the police in Lebanon. He did not want to approach the authorities to tell his story and no one advised him what do. The Tribunal does not find this explanation satisfactory. The applicant has family in Australia and the Tribunal does not accept that for three years he feared approaching the authorities in Australia to seek protection. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant was threatened and assaulted in Lebanon and he feared being seriously harmed upon his return, he would not have delayed seeking protection for three years.

9. For all the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds the applicant not to be a credible, truthful and reliable witness. His evidence shows a propensity to manufacture, shift and tailor evidence in a manner which achieves his own purpose. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated and concocted his evidence to achieve an immigration outcome. The Tribunal also did not find the witness, [Ms A], to be reliable or credible.

10. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant and [Ms A] are now married, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was threatened, assaulted or harmed in any way after [Ms A]’s family discovered their relationship. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant ‘escaped’ to Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that [Ms A]’s family in Lebanon are opposed to the applicant’s marriage to [Ms A] or that the applicant and [Ms A] married in secret. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and [Ms A] have received threats from both their respective families. The tribunal does not accept that [Ms A]’s family have threatened to seriously harm the applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s family have threated to harm [Ms A] and their [child] should they return to Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s parents and other family members, including his extended family are opposed to the marriage or that they intend to harm the applicant, [Ms A] and/or the applicant [child] in any way. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father intends to kill or otherwise harm the applicant [child]. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s family or [Ms A]’s family intend to take the applicant [child].

11. The Tribunal has considered the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his case. However, having regard to the fundamental lack of credibility in the applicant’s evidence throughout the process, the Tribunal is not prepared to give any weight to the affidavit signed by [name], the undated letter from the [official] of the town of [name], the three purported summonses and the threatening email purportedly sent by [Ms A]’s parents.

12. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm arising from his relationship with and subsequent marriage to [Ms A] or any other factor arising from his circumstances.

13. With regard to the applicant [child] and the claims made on [the child]’s behalf by [the] parents, as the Tribunal has rejected the applicant's claims arising from his relationship with and marriage to [Ms A], the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant [child] will be subjected to serious harm for reasons provided by the applicant and [Ms A]. The Tribunal does not accept that that there is a real chance that the applicant [child] would be subjected to serious harm for a Convention reason at the hands of the members of [the] father’s and/or [the] mother’s respective families or anyone else in Lebanon.

14. In [Ms A]’s statement, provided in support of her [child]’s application, it was claimed that if she were to take her [child] to Lebanon [the child] will get sick or die because [the child] is not used to ‘the habitat in Lebanon and the war’. No further information or evidence was provided on behalf of the applicant [child] in relation to these claims to the Department or the Tribunal. In any event, the Tribunal is not satisfied that not being used to the habitat or instability in Lebanon exposes the applicant [child] to a real chance of being persecuted for a Convention reason.

15. The Tribunal is not satisfied that are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant [child] being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that [the child] will suffer significant harm arising from [the] father’s relationship with and subsequent marriage to [Ms A] or any other factor arising from his circumstances. The Tribunal is not satisfied that are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant [child] being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that [the child] will suffer significant harm arising from not being used to the habitat or instability in Lebanon.

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that they will be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on them for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a)-(e) of the definition                of torture in s.5(1). The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering or pain or suffering, either physical or mental, such as to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment in s.5(1). Nor is it satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that they will suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in s.5(1) which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer arbitrary deprivation of their life or the death penalty.

17. 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 s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant son satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

    Shahyar Roushan
    Senior Member