1421376 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4156

1421376 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4156 (18 July 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1421376

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:18 July 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 18 July 2016 at 9:47am

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).

   Protection Visa Application

2. The applicants are husband and wife. They are [ages], respectively. They are Maronite Christians and citizens of Lebanon. They resided in [village 1]. They arrived in Australia [in] October 2012 on visitor visas issued [in] September 2012. They applied to the Department of Immigration (the department) for protection visas [in] October 2013. For convenience and the purpose of this decision, the Tribunal will refer to the first named applicant as ‘the applicant’ and to the second named applicant as ‘the applicant wife’.

3. In a statement attached to his application for a protection visa, the applicant made the following claims:

4. Since October 2012 and the influx of Syrian refugees the security situation in Lebanon has deteriorated. He and his wife have travelled to Australia on a number of occasions and they are being supported by their children in Australia. As a result, they are considered to be ‘financially well off, and even affluent’. People in his village are aware that their children send them money from Australia. There is a high prevalence of kidnappings for ransom in Lebanon and they are at greater risk of being targeted because of their ‘connections with Australia and [their] frequent and long trips overseas’.

5. The deterioration of the security situation has also resulted in shops being looted, threatening the capacity of shop owners to subsist. This means that ‘the amount work that [he] will do will diminish’. 

6. In March 2013, his [Family Member 1] was followed as she drove to [village 1] to visit family. The experience was very frightening for her. The applicant’s [Family Member 2], who works as a [occupation], was ‘held at gun point’ and threatened ‘on account of his wealth’. People are afraid of leaving their house or parking their cars on the street as cars have been damaged in the past. In July 2013, shots were fired into a neighbour’s property. A few months earlier, shots were fired at another family member’s house. He would be unable to travel to Tripoli to go to the grocery store or the pharmacist.

7. He and his wife would not be safe at their age. He fears being kidnapped or their house being ‘raided’ by people in search of money. He also fears being targeted as a practising Christian. He and his wife would be unable to internally relocate due to their advanced age and lack of support elsewhere in Lebanon.

   The Interview

8. The applicants were invited to attend an interview with a delegate of the Minister [in] March 2014 and provided further evidence to the department. Where relevant the applicants’ oral evidence to the delegate is discussed below.

   Further Evidence

9. In a separate statement, dated [in] April 2014, the applicant wife essentially reiterated the claims made by the applicant in his statement. Her claims are as follows:

10. She dresses ‘in clothing from overseas’ and her clothing is considered ‘sophisticated and foreign’. This would make her a target of kidnapping. They are perceived to be wealthy due to the fact that they are able to travel overseas.

11. As a result of the civil war in Syria and the influx of refugees in Lebanon, ‘bandits linger around airports and banks selecting targets’. She relies on financial assistance provided to her by her children from overseas and visiting the bank has become very dangerous since her departure from Lebanon. She has heard from ‘family and friends’ that ‘thugs linger around the bank prepared to mug people who enter or exit with money’.

12. She would be unable to travel to Tripoli to purchase goods from the grocery store or to visit the doctor because of ongoing violence. She had heard from family and neighbours that homes around her house in the village have been ‘sprayed with stray bullets’. In November 2013 the [store] of her [relative], [Mr A], was robbed by armed men. [Mr A] is an Australian citizen and after this incident he returned to Australia ‘as attacks on individuals perceived to be wealthy has become commonplace in Lebanon’. She fears suffering the same fate.

13. In December 2013, [Family Member 2], who owns a [certain] store, was threatened at his store by two armed men who demanded money. He refused to pay and the men escaped. His [store] had not been robbed in the past.

14. The Lebanese authorities are unable or incapable of protecting her.

15. In support of her statement, the applicant wife submitted a number of news articles, sourced from the internet, including articles dating back to November 2013 in relation to the rise of kidnappings for ransom in Lebanon following the Syrian civil war.

    The Delegate’s Decision

16. The delegate refused the application [in] December 2014. The delegate found the applicants to be credible witnesses, but he was not satisfied that the applicants faced a real chance or a real risk of being seriously or significantly harmed in Lebanon.

    Application for Review

17. The applicants applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. A copy of the decision was provided by the applicants to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review and the applicants are taken to be on notice of the delegate’s findings and reasons.

18. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 12 July 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also took evidence from the applicants’ [children] and [Mr Z], a family friend. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal is discussed below.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

19. 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.

20. 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).

21. 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.

22. 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’).

23. 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 (DFAT) 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

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

    Religion

25. The applicants have claimed that they fear harm in Lebanon for the reason of their Christian faith. The Tribunal accepts that the applicants are Maronite Christians. At the hearing, when the applicants were asked if they had faced any harm in Lebanon for the reason of their religion, they both stated that they had been subjected to abusive language. The applciant stated that whenever he travelled to Tripoli, because he displayed a cross in his car, they said abusive things to him. The applicant wife agreed with the applicant and also stated that they were subjected to verbal abuse. However, when asked about the nature of the abusive language, they were unable to provide any details other than to repeat that they were subjected to abusive language by people they did not know. The applicant wife added that these people pointed at the cross and said ‘these people are Christian’. As it was put to the applicants at the hearing, these claims were not included in their respective statements to the department. The applicant responded that sometimes they forget things and the applicant wife explained that she had thought that this was normal behaviour and did not merit a mention. The Tribunal does not find these explanations satisfactory. The Tribunal is of the view that, if the applicants had been subjected to verbal abuse for the reason of their religion, they would not have failed to mention this in their reasonably detailed statements to the Department.

26. The applicant further stated at the hearing that young people came to his village with motorcycles, making a lot of noise. The applicant, however, did not know who these people were. He conceded that his [village] was a religiously mixed village and all the residents had felt harassed by the noise generated from the motorcycles. The applicant’s evidence did not suggest that he was targeted for harassment by young people because of his religion.

27. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants have been subjected to any form of harm in the past, including verbal abuse or abusive language, for the reason of their Christian faith and practice.

28. The Tribunal has found no information in any of the sources consulted, including DFAT reports, news articles and reports from international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to suggest that Christians in Lebanon, including Maronites, have been subjected to serious or significant harm by Muslims, Islamic groups or anyone else in Lebanon. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a risk that the applicants will face serious harm or significant harm in Lebanon for the reason of, or arising from, their religion in Lebanon.

    Perception of Wealth, Kidnapping and Crime

29. The applicants have claimed that when they were in Lebanon they were supported by their children who reside in Australia. The applicant wife gave evidence to the Department that she dressed ‘in clothing from overseas’ and her clothing were considered ‘sophisticated and foreign’. At their Departmental interview, their then representative also pointed out that the applicants had a ‘nice’ car. It was claimed that these factors, combined with the fact that they have travelled to Australia, staying for long periods of time, create the perception of wealth. As a result, they may be subjected to criminal conduct, including kidnapping for ransom, mugging and burglary. The applicants did not claim to have been subjected to this form of behaviour in the past.

30. At the hearing, the applicant’s evidence suggested that the financial assistance he had received from his children in Australia was modest. At his interview with the delegate, he stated that he was not the only person in his village who received financial assistance from relatives residing overseas.

31. Indeed, as it was put to the applicants at the hearing, Lebanon has a long history of migration and return. The Lebanese diaspora now numbers an estimated 16 million with many retaining close family or business relationships within Lebanon and returning frequently as a result.[1] According to the Blominvest Bank, the Lebanese diaspora is well attributed for leveraging the country’s balance of payments. Accounting for 17% of the country’s GDP, expatriates’ remittances amounted to $7.47 billion in 2012; with remittances predominately originating from North America and Europe.[2] Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there are many Lebanese citizens like the applicants who are supported by, or receive financial assistances from, relatives residing in Western countries.

    [1] DFAT Country Report Lebanon, 18 December 2015.

    [2] Blominvest Bavnk, Lebanon: Migration and Remittances, 2 November 2013,

32. The country information before the Tribunal suggests that Lebanon has low to moderate levels of crime, which have increased, likely as a result of the weak economy and significant influx of Syrian refugees since 2011.[3] The Tribunal also appreciates that kidnappings for ransom have occurred in the recent past in Lebanon. However, it appears that in certain areas of the country, such as Beka’a valley, the risk is higher, and the targets tend to be chosen on sectarian grounds. DFAT, for example, has noted reports of Shi’as being kidnapped, particularly in the Beka’a Governorate, an area associated with the production and trafficking of hashish and narcotics. DFAT also noted that these criminal operations are run by clans who are motivated by different factors, including sectarian and financial considerations.[4] Reports further indicate that while some wealthy expatriates have been targeted in the past, victims have tended to be from within the higher strata of the Lebanese society. The information before the Tribunal, including the most recent DFAT report, does not suggest that ordinary Lebanese citizens, who receive remittances or financial assistance from abroad or those who have relatives in, and travel to, Western countries, face a real chance or a real risk of being kidnapped for ransom.

    [3] DFAT n1, aboce

    [4] Ibid.

33. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicants are apprehensive of criminal activity, including muggings and robbery. The applicants’ evidence in this regard was vague and general. They did not claim that they would be targeted by any particular group or individual. Instead, they referred to anecdotal evidence of lack of safety and an increase in levels of crime in Lebanon. The Tribunal has considered the applicants’ evidence in relation to the experiences of their grandchildren and another relative in Lebanon. With regard to their [Family Member 1], the applicants claimed that, on one occasion in 2013, she was followed by unidentified individuals. However, the applicants stated that the incident was not repeated and their [Family Member 1] has continued to live a normal life in Lebanon. In relation to their [Family Member 2], the applicants stated that, in 2013, he was a victim of an attempted armed robbery in [location]. The attempt had failed as those responsible had fled when customers had entered the store. Whilst the applicant wife claimed that this was due to the perception of wealth, neither the applicants’ [Family Member 2] nor the store were subjected to any further robbery attempts. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicants’ [relative], [Mr A], was also subjected to a burglary. The applicant wife explained at the hearing that [Mr A] owned a store, which was located next to his house in [village] and that, on one occasion, when he and his family were out, the store was burgled.

34. The Tribunal accepts that these incidents had occurred. However, the applicants’ evidence indicates that the incidents were unrelated, and that they had occurred at different times in different localities by unknown individuals. The Tribunal is of the view that these incidents were nothing more than random and opportunistic criminal acts.

35. In his written statement to the Department the applicant stated that people in his village are afraid of leaving their house or parking their cars on the street as cars have been damaged in the past. The applicant did not claim that he was targeted or that his car had been damaged. At the hearing, when questioned in relation to this claim, the applicant stated that these were just bad people damaging property.

36. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicants will be seriously harmed at the hands of criminals or anyone else in Lebanon for the reason of their membership of a particular social group, namely Lebanese citizens who are wealthy, Lebanese citizens who are perceived to be wealthy, Lebanese citizens who travel to and stay in Western countries, Lebanese citizens with connections to a Western country, any combination of these groups, any other particular social group arising on the face of the evidence, or any other Convention reason. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicants will face significant harm arising from their socio- economic status, their perceived wealth, receiving remittances from Australia or their travels to and connection with Australia.

    Stray Bullets and General Violence

37. The applicants claimed in their written statements that bullets had been fired into properties in their village. At the hearing, they explained that their village was located a short distance away from Tripoli, particularly the two suburbs of Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen. The applicants have also claimed that they would be unable to travel to Tripoli to buy groceries and medicine or visit their doctor as a result of the conflict in Tripoli.

38. The country information before the Tribunal suggests that the neighbourhoods of Jabal Mohsen, a mainly Alawite area, and Bab El Tabbaneh, a Sunni district, have a long-standing feud, which sporadically erupts into violent clashes between residents of the two areas. The Tribunal accepts that, due to its proximity to these areas, the applicants’ village was at times hit by stray bullets shot in the course of skirmishes between the sparring neighbourhoods. The Tribunal, however, finds that the houses in the applicants’ village were not specifically targeted by anyone for Convention reasons. DFAT has reported that in April 2014, Lebanese authorities implemented a security plan in Tripoli which led to a notable reduction in the number of incidents between the Alawite and Sunni communities. DFAT observed that Tripoli is now broadly stable.[5] There is no persuasive evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicants would be unable to travel to other areas not affected by violence in order to shop or attend to their other needs. The Tribunal finds that the applicants’ chance of facing Convention related harm as a consequence of clashes between Alawis and Sunnis in their respective Tripoli neighbourhoods of Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh to be remote. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant's face a real risk of being significantly harmed as a result of sporadic conflict in the suburbs of Tripoli.

    [5] Ibid.

1. The applicants informed the Tribunal at the hearing that the house they had rented and resided in for many years in [village 1] has been repossessed by its owner due to the applicants’ prolonged absence. They stated that they do not have a house to go back to in Lebanon. As it was put to the applicants, however, one of their daughters and her family continue to reside in a nearby village. The applicants stated that their daughter lives in a small house and that her children have their own lives. As it was put to them at the hearing, they would be able to reside in the same locality as their daughter and rely on the assistance of their daughter’s adult children, who also reside in the same locality. They have the financial support of their children in Australia and there is no reason why they would be unable to secure accommodation. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants’ inability to return to their old home in Lebanon exposes them to a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in Lebanon.

2. The applicants’ evidence points to general fears and concerns in relation to general violence and tension in Lebanon. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicants are apprehensive and concerned, particularly because of their advanced age. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the tensions or lack of general security the applicants are concerned about are faced by them personally. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the general security situation in Lebanon would expose the applicants to a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.

3. Under s.36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicants will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicants personally. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tensions, lack of general security and the instability the applicants fear are faced by the population generally and not by each of them personally. The Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm in Lebanon as a result of lack of general security and instability.

4. For the reasons provided above, 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 the applicant 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 lives or the death penalty.

5. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

   DECISION

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

   Shahyar Roushan
   Senior Member