1501068 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4521

1501068 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4521 (28 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1501068

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Linda Symons

DATE:28 September 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 28 September 2016 at 5:24pm

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).

2. The applicants, who claim to be citizens of Lebanon, arrived in Australia [in] August 2014 as holders of [temporary] visas. [In] September 2014, they were granted Bridging visas in association with their application for Protection visas.

3. The applicants applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for Protection visas [in] September 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] January 2015. On 23 January 2015, they applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

4. The first named applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 May 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

5. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

6. The issues that arise on review are whether Australia has protection obligations to the applicants under the Refugees Convention or under the complementary protection criterion.

   RELEVANT LAW

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

   Refugee criterion

8. 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).

   Complementary protection criterion

9. 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’).

   Section 499 Ministerial Direction

10. 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  –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.

    Member of the same family unit

11. Subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in r.1.12 of the Regulations to include a dependent child of the head of the household.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

12. The first named applicant’s claims in her visa application are summarised as follows:

    ·She is a member of the Alawite sect and is from northern Lebanon.

    ·She left Lebanon because she received numerous threats from Muslim extremists in Tripoli.

    ·Her husband has also received threats that if he left home to work or get out of the mountain they would be shot or beheaded. They have targeted a number of Alawites from the mountain due to their trade or family history.

    ·Her family was targeted. She and her family have experienced a life time of persecution from extremist Muslims who believe that the execution of Alawites will lead them to heaven. Extremists affiliated with ISIS surrounded her home in Jabal Mohsen.

    ·In the past 12 months missiles and explosives have hit her building. They were unable to leave their home. On one occasion when she left her home she was shot by a sniper. Many Alawites have been shot and mutilated when leaving home. On one occasion, she, her son and daughter went out shopping when an attempt was made to kidnap her daughter. She and her son were able to fight them off but were bashed in the process and threatened with beheading if they left their home again. She has suffered social, economic and physical harm as a result.

    ·Her family have a well-respected background and are well known as Alawites. They have been targeted on many occasions. In 1983, her [brother] was chased by a gang of extremists across the border to [another country] in an attempt to extort money from her father. Her brother was run down and killed. A year later her father was shot by a sniper because he refused to give them money. In 1988, whilst walking into the building where her home is, a bomb exploded and she injured her [body part]. In 2013, [another brother] was targeted and chased down in Tripoli. He drove into a concrete wall and died as he tried to escape the bearded men.

    ·In February 2014, her [third brother] died as they were unable to get him to the necessary medical services because of continuous threats against her family. A few months later, her mother passed away as they were unable to get her to a hospital because of clashes with extremists.

    ·If she returns to Lebanon she will be confined to her home until she and her family die of starvation. If she is caught leaving home she fears she will be shot dead, kidnapped, held to ransom, tortured or executed like the journalists in Iraq or Syria. As a female, she will be sexually abused first.

    ·The Alawite community has been threatened. Alawites caught in Syria by extremists are being beheaded. Extremists have invaded Lebanon. Alawites are targeted by Islamic extremists because they promote religious freedom, respect freedom, dignity and humanity. They are likened to Christians and non-believers. Christians have also been targeted and the crucifix was recently burnt.

    ·She fears harm because she is an Alawite and they want to oppress minority groups. Her father was an affluent community member who supported freedom of religion and a secular way of living. Her partner has a trade and Alawites who are self-sufficient are disliked. As a female she and her daughter are less able to protect themselves from indecent attacks.

    ·The authorities are unable to protect their own members and army officers have been kidnapped and beheaded. They have not been able to prevent members of the UN being kidnapped, homes being attacked and Alawites being shot in Tripoli. The army and security forces in Lebanon are poorly equipped and are not a match for ISIS. The head of security and armed forces in Lebanon supports the extremists.  

13. The second named applicant is the dependent daughter of the first named applicant. She has not made any claims in her own right.

14. The first named applicant has provided the Department with personal documents and a copy of a Human Rights Watch Report on sectarian attacks in Tripoli.

15. The first named applicant attended an interview with the Department [in] January 2015. During that interview, she re-iterated and expanded on her written claims.

16. The first named applicant has lodged with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [January] 2015. She has also provided to the Tribunal a Statutory Declaration by herself dated 11 May 2016 and further country information on Lebanon.

17. Following the hearing, the Tribunal received post-hearing submissions from the applicants’ migration agent and further country information on Lebanon.

    Nationality

18. The Tribunal finds that the applicants are citizens of Lebanon, based on their Lebanese passports, which are before the Tribunal, and the first named applicant’s evidence and will assess her claims on this basis. The Tribunal finds that the applicants are outside their country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that they have a right to enter and reside in any country other than their country of nationality.

19. The Tribunal has before it a copy of the second named applicant’s Birth Certificate and accepts that the first named applicant is her mother. The Tribunal finds that the second named applicant is the dependent child of the first named applicant.

Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicants under the Refugees   Convention?

1. The first named applicant gave evidence that her application for Protection visas was prepared by her [relative]. She stated that she provided her with the information to complete the application form and that the information she provided is true and correct. She stated that she is satisfied that her visa application is accurate and complete.

2. The Tribunal discussed with the first named applicant her background, her religion, her family, her reasons for coming to Australia and why she fears returning to Lebanon. Her oral evidence was consistent with her written claims. The Tribunal found her to generally be a credible witness but formed the view that she had exaggerated some of her claims. 

3. In her visa application, the first named applicant claimed that she is an Alawite, faced persecution in Lebanon for this reason and fears persecution for this reason if she returns to Lebanon. During the hearing, she gave evidence that she, her parents, her husband and her children are all Alawites. She stated that since coming to Australia she has been attending an Alawite mosque in [suburb].

4. The first named applicant provided the Department with a number of supporting documents including her Marriage Certificate, the second named applicant’s Birth Certificate and a Residents’ Census Register. Her Marriage Certificate indicates that her religious sect is Muslim Shia [deleted]. The second named applicant’s Birth Certificate indicates that her father’s religious sect is Alawite and her mother’s religious sect is Muslim Shia [deleted]. The Residents’ Census Register indicates that her religious sect is Alawite.

5. In an email to the Department dated [January] 2015, the first named applicant stated “please note that on my Marriage Certificate the sect registered is Shia [deleted] which is [details deleted], many Alawites register as Shia to avoid persecution. However, other documents attached show I am Alawite.” For the purpose of this application, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that she is an Alawite.

6. The first named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that she lived in Jabal Mohsen, which is a suburb in Tripoli and a predominantly Alawite area, prior to her marriage. She stated that after her marriage in 1994 she continued to live in Jabal Mohsen with her husband and [children]. She stated that during the fighting in Jabal Mohsen in 2012 or 2013 her husband and other Alawites received threats from “terrorists in Tripoli” not to leave Jabal Mohsen, not go to work and not to go to Tripoli. She stated that during this time they would also stop school buses transporting children to school and would swear at the children.

7. The first named applicant stated that her husband and [a few of her] sons [respective ages] left Jabal Mohsen in 2013 and moved to [Town 1]. She stated that her husband did so to stop their sons being harassed on their way to and from school. She stated that he rented a house in [Town 1] and her sons attended school in [Town 2] which is close by. When asked whether her husband or [sons] had any problems whilst living in [Town 1], she responded that, in general, it is not safe for anyone to live in Lebanon. When asked whether she was referring to general safety in Lebanon, she responded yes and stated that Lebanon as a whole is not a safe place.

8. The first named applicant stated that she and her daughter, who is [age] years old, (the second named applicant) remained in Jabal Mohsen. When asked why they did not go to [Town 1] with her husband and sons, she stated that her mother was old and sick and it was difficult to move her so she stayed in Jabal Mohsen to look after her.

9. The Tribunal is of the view that if the security situation in Jabal Mohsen was as bad as the first named applicant claims, she would have wanted to remove her mother, daughter and herself from the area to a safer area. When the Tribunal asked her why she did not do so, she responded that as long as she stayed inside the area she was safe. She stated that the Lebanese army subsequently entered the Jabal Mohsen area to restore law and order and her husband and sons returned to Jabal Mohsen shortly thereafter. When asked whether her husband or [sons] have had any problems since they moved back to Jabal Mohsen, she responded that they have not. She stated that two days after they returned there were two explosions in the area but there have not been any other explosions since then. She stated that people in Jabal Mohsen “always receive threats” and are fearful of being blown up.

10. The first named applicant stated that [one child] has now completed year 12 and is attending a University near Tripoli where he is studying [course]. She stated that her [other children] are both [continuing] to attend school in [Town 2].

11. Despite the first named applicant’s claims that her husband and other Alawites were threatened by “terrorists in Tripoli” not to work, she stated that her husband owns his own [business]. She stated that he has one employee. She stated that he started this business about [number] years ago and still has the same business. She stated that she has [siblings] who live in Tripoli; [details of work deleted].

12. The Tribunal asked the first named applicant what she thought would happen if she returned to Lebanon. She responded that she is scared that she might be assaulted, harassed or kidnapped. She stated that she does not feel safe. When asked whether she and her family had considered moving to a safer area in Lebanon, she responded that Lebanon is demographically divided into sectarian cantons and religious groups live in different areas. She stated that to move to another area and live with a different group would not be comfortable or safe. When asked why she could not move to another area where there were lots of Alawites, she responded that they are a minority in Lebanon and there are no Alawites in any other areas other than Jabal Mohsen. This is not consistent with the country information on Lebanon.

13. The Tribunal discussed with the first named applicant country information on Lebanon from DFAT which states as follows:

    Sectarian violence within Tripoli has historically been limited to the predominantly   Alawite suburb of Jabal Mohsen and Sunni suburb of Bab al-Tabbeneh, with the   meeting point of the two – Syria Street – a recurring flashpoint. The conflict in Syria   has exacerbated the traditional hostility between the Alawite and Sunni communities,   and resulted in regular rounds of sectarian violence between competing militias, most   recently in 2013 and 2014.

    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 contacts have noted that Tripoli is now broadly stable, though   vulnerable to outbreaks of renewed violence.

    In January 2015, two suicide bombers linked to al-Nusra attacked a café in the   predominantly Alawite suburb of Jabal Mohsen, killing nine people and injuring a       further thirty five people. Al-Nusra reportedly claimed that the attack was in response   to the mistreatment of Sunnis in both Lebanon and Syria.

    Overall, DFAT assesses that Alawites living in Jabal Mohsen are at a moderate risk   of violence, given the long history of sectarian violence in the area. Alawites living in              other areas of Tripoli face a lower risk of violence which is avoided relatively easily,             although sectarian violence has spilled into other parts of Tripoli on occasion. At   times of increased sectarian tensions, Alawites who are actively involved in fighting                   face a high risk of violence.[1]

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

14. The first named applicant responded that the explosions she referred to were in the area next to Jabal Mohsen in the presence of the army. She stated that the army can hardly protect itself.

15. The Tribunal also discussed with the first named applicant country information on Lebanon from DFAT which states as follows:

    DFAT assesses that Alawites living in Akkar Province face a low risk of violence,   given there are no recent examples of Alawites being targeted on the basis of their   religious identity alone. Relocation to an area with a large Alawite population is an   option.[2]

    [2] Ibid.

16. The first named applicant responded that she does not agree with this assessment. She stated that Alawites in Akkar Province cannot protect themselves.

17. The Tribunal discussed with the first named applicant country information on Lebanon which indicates that “incidents of violence influenced by long-standing sectarian tensions have decreased, ostensibly in response to successful interventions by the Lebanese authorities and cooperation between traditionally opposing actors (including Hezbollah, which has played some role in safeguarding domestic security in parts of the country).[3] The Tribunal referred to the country information above that Alawites involved in fighting face a high risk of violence and noted her evidence that her husband was not involved in fighting and that she made no claims that her sons were involved in fighting. The first named applicant responded that although the Lebanese army is in Jabal Mohsen explosions have still occurred in Jabal Mohsen.

    [3] Ibid.

18. The Tribunal noted that her husband and [a few of her sons] had moved out of Jabal Mohsen and then voluntarily returned to live there. The Tribunal noted that it is unlikely that her husband would have done so if he thought it was unsafe to return. The Tribunal noted that since then [one child] has started attending University and her [other children] continue to attend school. The first named applicant responded that they are still at risk. She stated that Lebanon has been like that forever. She stated that things calm down and then flare up again. She stated that when her eldest [child] finishes his studies he will not be able to find work because of his religion. When the Tribunal noted that her husband and [siblings], who are all Alawites, are working so it is unlikely that her son will not be able to work because of his religion, she responded that her son wants to work in the government.

1. The Tribunal referred to country information which indicates that there is a high rate of youth unemployment in Lebanon because of the poor economic conditions and that affects everyone in the community not just Alawites.[4] The first named applicant declined to respond.

   [4] Ibid.

2. The first named applicant has provided to the Tribunal a letter dated [May] 2016 from the Principal of the High School of [Town 2] which indicates that [one child] “completed the study of the [number] systematic year –[name] Branch – for the scholastic year 2012-2013’ and failed his exams. She also provided the Tribunal with a letter dated [May] 2016 from [an official], who indicates that her family are residents of Jabal Mohsen, resided in their house during the events from 2008 to 2013 and were displaced to [Town 2], [Town 1] as they ran away from these events in Tripoli. He states that they are Alawites, who are minorities in the city of Tripoli, and were subject to killing and torture on public roads for a limited period of time. He states that, as they cannot live outside the region, they have returned to their house and are still suffering psychologically from these events.

3. The Tribunal has considered the country information provided by the first named applicant to the Department and the Tribunal. She provided the Department with a Report titled Lebanon: Sectarian attacks in Tripoli dated 19 December 2013 and prepared by Human Rights Watch. This Report indicates that the “conflict in neighbouring Syria has severely aggravated existing sectarian tensions in Tripoli, where intermittent violence has persisted between the hilltop Alawite neighbourhood of Jabal Mohsen and the Sunni neighbourhoods that completely surround it, including Bab al-Tabbaneh, since May 2008. Hundreds of both Sunni and Alawite residents have been the main victims, but Jabal Mohsen residents are especially vulnerable.” It indicates that the “government’s security response has been weak and official security operations have failed to stop the fighting or demilitarize affected neighbourhoods.” 

4. The first named applicant has provided the Tribunal with a number of news articles which refer to the history of conflict between the Sunni neighbourhood of Bab el Tabbaneh and the Alawite neighbourhood of Jabal Mohsen in Tripoli.  Some of these news articles also refer to the Lebanese army taking control of the streets in Tripoli in December 2013. She has provided the Tribunal with news articles dated 2014 which indicate that ‘the fighting has evolved from being clashes between Bab el Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen to a confrontation between dozens of armed groups and the Lebanese army.”

5. The first named applicant has provided the Tribunal with a newspaper article dated 17 October 2014 and titled The Shia-Sunni War Reaches Lebanon. This article refers to the conflict between the Nusra Front in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. She has also provided the Tribunal with a newspaper article dated 2 March 2015 which refers to the shooting and killing of Badr Eid, the brother of Ali Eid, the founder of the Arab Democratic Party.

6. The first named applicant has provided the Tribunal with a number of news articles in relation to a suicide attack in a café on the street dividing the neighbourhood of Bab el Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen on 10 January 2015 which killed seven people and injured thirty six others. She has provided the Tribunal with a news article dated 30 May 2016 titled Sunni Hawk Wins Lebanon vote, risking new tensions which refers to Mr Ashraf Rifi winning the Municipal elections in Tripoli.

7. The first named applicant has provided the Tribunal with a news article dated 6 August 2016 and titled Ibrahim: Danger Level Surging, Country at Critical Crossroads which refers to security warnings given by the General Security chief Major General Abbas Ibrahim. There are also a number of negative comments in response to this article to the effect that this type of fear and intimidation is being used to maintain an “iron grip on the country”, that the crisis in the Middle East is much bigger than just Lebanon and that this is being handled by superpowers like the USA and Russia and that threats to the northern and eastern borders of Lebanon are being “faced brilliantly” by the Lebanese Army and other security forces.

8. The first named applicant has provided the Tribunal with travel advisories issued by the governments of Australia (which indicates ‘reconsider your need to travel’) and Canada (which indicates ‘avoid non-essential travel’).

9. The Tribunal has had regard to the post-hearing submissions made by the applicants’ migration agent. The Tribunal finds that some of his submissions are not consistent with the first named applicant’s own evidence or the country information.   

10. The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility when assessing the first named applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal has also had regard to the DFAT Country Information Report on Fiji and the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Findings

11. Having considered all of the first named applicant’s claims, the evidence and the submissions, the Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant and her family are Alawites. The Tribunal accepts that her family live in Jabal Mohsen, a predominantly Alawite neighbourhood in the city of Tripoli.

12. The country information indicates that there has been a long history of sectarian conflict between the Alawites in Jabal Mohsen and the Sunnis in the adjacent neighbourhood of Bar el Tabbaneh and that the conflict in Syria has exacerbated the traditional hostility between these two communities.[5]

    [5] Ibid.

13. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant, her father and [brothers] have been victims of these hostilities. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant and her husband have also received threats of violence in the past. The Tribunal accepts that on one occasion, whilst the first named applicant was out shopping with her son and daughter, an attempt was made to kidnap her daughter but she and her son were able to prevent it.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant’s husband and [a few of her sons] left Jabal Mohsen in 2013 and relocated to [Town 1] as her sons were being harassed on their way to and from school. The Tribunal accepts that her husband rented a house in [Town 1] for over 12 months and her sons attended school in [Town 2] during this period. The Tribunal accepts that her husband continued to work in his business during this period. The Tribunal accepts that her husband and sons did not have any problems whilst living in [Town 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that threats against her husband and children persisted when they relocated to [Town 1].

15. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant and her daughter continued to live in Jabal Mohsen as she wanted to take care of her mother who was elderly and unwell. The Tribunal is of the view that if she had serious concerns for the safety of her daughter, her mother or herself they would have relocated to [Town 1] with her husband and sons.   

16. The country information indicates that “in April 2014 the 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 contacts have noted that Tripoli is now broadly stable though vulnerable to outbreaks of renewed violence.”[6] On 10 January 2015, “two suicide bombers linked to al-Nusra attacked a café in the predominantly Alawite suburb of Jabal Mohsen, killing nine people and injuring a further thirty five people. Al-Nusra reportedly claimed that the attack was in response to the mistreatment of Sunnis in both Lebanon and Syria. Whilst this incident took place in a café in Jabal Mohsen (and not in a mosque as submitted by the applicants’ migration agent) it does not appear to indicate a return to the hostilities that existed between the Alawites in Jabal Mohsen and the Sunnis in Bar el Tabbaneh prior to the implementation of the security plan in Tripoli in April 2014.

    [6] Ibid.

17. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant’s husband and sons returned to live in Jabal Mohsen in 2014 after the Lebanese army took control of the area. The Tribunal accepts that [one child] is now attending university and her [other children] continue to attend school in [Town 2]. The Tribunal accepts that her husband continues to work in his business. The Tribunal does not accept that her husband has suffered from prolonged periods of unemployment which has adversely affected her family’s ability to subsist. The Tribunal accepts that her family have had no problems since returning to live in Jabal Mohsen.

18. DFAT assesses that “Alawites living in Jabal Mohsen are at a moderate risk of violence, given the long history of sectarian violence in the area. Alawites living in other areas of Tripoli face a lower risk of violence which is avoided relatively easily, although sectarian violence has spilled into other parts of Tripoli on occasion. At times of increased sectarian tensions, Alawites who are actively involved in fighting face a high risk of violence.”[7] The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant’s husband and sons have not been involved in fighting and would therefore not be at high risk of violence for this reason.

    [7] Ibid.

19. The Tribunal does not accept that if the first named applicant returns to live in Jabal Mohsen she will be at risk of serious harm if she travels out of the Jabal Mohsen area. The Tribunal does not accept that she will have to “continually deny” that she is Alawi in order to avoid potential harm in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that she will not be able to access education, health care and employment in Lebanon because she is Alawi or that she will not be able to subsist for this reason. The Tribunal does not accept that she will be forced to abandon her efforts to look for work outside the Jabal Mohsen area thus depriving her of the right to subsist. Her evidence is that she was employed as a [occupation] in Lebanon.

20. The Tribunal does not accept that the efforts of the Lebanese authorities to protect Alawis have proven to be futile as this is not consistent with the country information referred to above.

21. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant would prefer to live in Australia with her family and has a subjective fear of returning to Lebanon. However, in view of the above country information, the voluntary return of the first named applicant’s husband and [a few of her] sons to their home in Jabal Mohsen and the fact that they have had no problems since their return to Jabal Mohsen in 2014, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the first named applicant will suffer serious harm, because she is an Alawite, if she returns to her home in Jabal Mohsen in Tripoli in the reasonably foreseeable future.  

22. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the first named applicant will suffer serious harm for any of the reasons claimed if she returns to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

23. Having considered all of the first named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the first named applicant will suffer serious harm for reason of her religion, actual or imputed political opinion or any other Refugee Convention reason if she returns to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugee Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that she does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act. 

    Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable   consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk          that she will suffer significant harm

24. The Tribunal has considered the first named applicant’s claims under complementary protection. 

25. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the first named applicant will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if she returns to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

26. Having considered all of the first applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on her, she will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or she will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if she returns to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.    

27. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. 

    CONCLUSION

28. The Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

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

30. As the first named applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act and does not  hold a Protection visa, the second named applicant is unable to satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(b) or s.36(2)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the second named applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.

    DECISION

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

Linda Symons
         Member