1501903 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4014

1501903 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4014 (14 June 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1501903

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Linda Symons

DATE:14 June 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 14 June 2016 at 5:15pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, first arrived in Australia [in] March 2010, as the holder of a Visitor visa. He departed Australia [in] June 2010. He returned to Australia [in] July 2011 as the holder of a Prospective Spouse visa. He applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for a combined Partner visa [in] February 2012 and was granted an associated Bridging visa on that date. This application was refused by the Department [in] July 2013. [In] July 2013, he lodged an application for review with the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and withdrew this application [in] July 2014.

3. [In] September 2014, the applicant lodged a request for Ministerial intervention. [In]  September 2014, the request was finalised on the basis that there was “no power”.

4. The applicant applied for a Protection visa [in] September 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] January 2015. [In] February 2015, he lodged an application for review with the Tribunal.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 June 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

6. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

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

   RELEVANT LAW

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

12. The applicant’s claims in his visa application are summarised as follows:

    ·He left Lebanon to immigrate to Australia.

    ·He fears returning to Lebanon because his former partner has made a threat against him by reporting him to Hezbollah as she is a member of that group and is in control of the airport in Lebanon.

    ·His marriage lasted for [number] days as she asked him to convert to Islam and he refused. She also found out that he was an active member of the Lebanese Forces.

    ·He will be kidnapped By Hezbollah from the airport upon his arrival in Lebanon.

    ·As a Catholic Maronite, he will be subject to harm by Islamist fanatics.

    ·His wife and child are Australian citizens. As he will be unable to return to Australia if he is deported, his wife and child must go with him.

    ·The authorities will not protect him because Hezbollah is in control of everything in Lebanon. They recently tried to assassinate their leader and have killed may politicians in recent years. No one in that group faced justice. 

13. The applicant provided the Department with a copy of the bio data page of his Lebanese passport.

14. The applicant provided the Department with a written submission dated [in] January 2015. In his submission, he stated that his claims for protection arise from a feud between himself and his former partner. He stated that he married [Ms A] [in] February 2012 and their marriage lasted [number] days. He stated that when he came home from work [in] February 2012, his wife was not there and her belongings had been removed from the house. He stated that he contacted her by telephone and she said that she was sorry, her husband had threatened her that as she had married a Christian man she will never see her children again and her children were taken to Lebanon.

15. In his submission, the applicant stated that he saw [Ms A] again in June 2012 when she contacted him and asked him to give her some money to pay her legal fees. He stated that he gave her $[amount] on the basis that she would swear an affidavit admitting that she was never legally divorced and that she had been threatened by her husband. He stated that she agreed, but later disappeared and he could not locate her. He stated that when trying to locate her for the purpose of serving divorce papers, he found out that she had a Police case against her in December 2012. He stated that he was finally able to serve the divorce papers and the divorce was granted. He stated that he went to the Court and waited outside for her. He stated that she threatened him that she was in a lot of trouble, did not need more trouble from him and she would make sure that he got deported. He stated that soon after that he received a telephone call from a male who told him to pay his ex-wife, [Ms A], or they would get him when he returned to Lebanon. He did not take that threat seriously as he had no intention of returning to Lebanon at that time. He stated that he fears for his safety if he returns to Lebanon as he believes that these people are active members of Hezbollah who control everything in Lebanon, including the airport.

16. In his submission, the applicant stated that he is now married to an Australian citizen and has a [child]. He stated that his is facing the prospect of taking his family out of Australia to an unknown and unstable part of the word. He stated that he fears that if his family goes with him, his wife would suffer huge economic losses, her company will have to be run down and this could result in loss of employment for employees. He provided the Department with a copy of his previous request for Ministerial intervention dated [in] August 2014.

17. The applicant attended an interview with the Department [in] January 2015.

18. The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] January 2015. He has also provided the Tribunal with copies of the Birth Certificates of his [children], and a Discharge Summary dated [in] April 2016 from the [name] Hospital in relation to his wife, [Ms B].

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

19. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Lebanon, based on his Lebanese passport, which is before the Tribunal, and his evidence and will assess his claims on this basis. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.

20. The applicant gave evidence that his application for a Protection visa was prepared by him and his wife. He stated that the information he provided in his visa application is true and correct and that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. He stated that there have been no changes in his circumstances since his visa application was filed.

21. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his relationships in Australia, his family, his reasons for coming to Australia, why he fears returning to Lebanon and his application for Ministerial intervention. There were inconsistencies between his oral evidence and his written evidence and between his evidence to the Department and his evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found some of his claims to be implausible. The Tribunal has considered the evidence given by the applicant and has concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. The Tribunal’s concerns are noted below.

22. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his immigration history in Australia. He stated that he initially came to Australia on a Visitor visa in 2009. He stated that he returned to Australia in 2011 on a Prospective Spouse visa which was issued on the basis of his engagement to his [relative], [Ms C]. He stated that they did not get married and their relationship ended four or five months after his arrival in Australia. When asked why he did not return to Lebanon at that time, he responded that he still had nine months left on his Prospective Spouse visa and he found another wife. He stated that he did not inform the Department that his relationship with [Ms C] had ended. He stated that he met a woman named [Ms A] and they got married five months later [in] February 2012. He stated that their marriage lasted [number] days and [Ms A] then left.  He stated that he spent a considerable amount of time and money trying to obtain a divorce from [Ms A] as he had difficulty finding her to serve divorce papers on her.

23. The applicant gave evidence that he lodged an application for a Partner visa with the Department after he got married to [Ms A]. He stated that he lodged this application before [Ms A] left the marriage. He stated that he did not inform the Department after she left the marriage. The records of the Department indicate that he applied for a Partner visa [in] February 2012 on the basis of his marriage to [Ms A]. This visa application was therefore lodged several weeks after his marriage to [Ms A] ended [in] February 2012 and not before she left the marriage as he stated to the Tribunal. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that it tends to indicate that he provided false or misleading information to the Department for the purpose of obtaining a Partner visa. The Tribunal noted that this raised concerns as to whether he was doing the same thing to obtain a Protection visa. He responded that when he came to Australia he was [age] and did a lot of stupid things. He stated that it is now different as he has a wife and [number] children. He stated that he is trying to put everything behind him and start a new life.

24. The applicant gave evidence that after he divorced [Ms A] he withdrew his application for a Partner visa. He has lodged with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] January 2015 which indicates that the Department refused his application for a Partner visa [in] July 2013 and he lodged an application for review with the MRT [in] July 2013. It indicates that he subsequently withdrew his application for review [in] July 2014. It indicates that he then lodged a request for Ministerial intervention [in] September 2014 and this request was unsuccessful [in] September 2014. He then lodged his application for a Protection visa [in] September 2014.

25. The applicant gave evidence that he met his current wife, [Ms B], at the end of 2012 and they got married [in] November 2013. He stated that he then lodged another application for a Partner visa on the basis of his marriage to [Ms B]. He stated that the Department found that it was not a valid application. He stated that it was after that that he lodged his application for a Protection visa.

26. The applicant’s immigration history in Australia is of concern to the Tribunal. It indicates that he is someone who is prepared to provide false or misleading information to the Department and to withhold significant information from the Department in order to obtain an Australian visa. It also indicates that when all options available to him failed he then applied for a Protection visa. This raises significant issues in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. When the Tribunal raised its concerns in relation to his immigration history with the applicant, he declined to respond. 

27. In his application for a Protection visa, the applicant claimed that his marriage to [Ms A] lasted for only [number] days because she asked him to convert to Islam and he refused. He also claimed that she found out that he was an active member of the Lebanese Forces political party. During the hearing, the Tribunal asked him why his marriage to [Ms A] broke down. He responded that he came home [in] February 2012 and could not find her and her clothes were gone. He stated that he telephoned her and she told him that her husband knows that she married a Christian man and threatened her that she would not see her [number] children again. He stated that she told him that her children are in Lebanon. He stated that he was not aware that she had been previously married and had [number] children. He stated that he did not know that she had not divorced her first husband.  

28. The applicant stated that [Ms A] is a Muslim and he is a Christian. He stated that he was aware that she was a Muslim before they got married. When asked whether their different religions was a problem, he answered no. When asked if [Ms A] said anything else to him during their telephone conversation, he stated that she said she was sorry. When asked what he said, he responded that he tried to “fix it” but she said if she returned to him she would not be able to see her children. This evidence in relation to the reasons for the breakdown of his marriage is not consistent with his claims in his visa application.

29. In his request for Ministerial intervention lodged [in] August 2014, the applicant stated that his marriage to [Ms A] lasted two days. He stated that when he came home from work [in] February 2012 he could not find her or her belongings. He stated that he telephoned her and she said she was sorry but her husband threatened her that as she had married a Christian man she will never see her children again and that her children were taken to Lebanon. He made no mention of her wanting him to convert to Islam or the Lebanese Forces political party. This version of events is consistent with his oral evidence to the Tribunal and inconsistent with his written claims to the Department.

30. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted its concerns in relation to the credibility of these claims. He declined to respond.

31. In his visa application, the applicant claimed that [Ms A] is a member of Hezbollah, that she threatened him, reported him to Hezbollah, he will be kidnapped by Hezbollah upon his arrival at the airport in Lebanon and that the authorities will not protect him because Hezbollah controls everything in Lebanon including the airport. In a written submission to the Department dated [in] January 2015, he stated that when he was trying to locate [Ms A] for the purpose of serving divorce papers on her, he found out that she had a Police case against her in December 2012. He stated that he went to the Court and waited outside for her. He stated that she threatened him that she was in a lot of trouble, did not need more trouble from him and she would make sure that he got deported. He stated that soon after that he received a telephone call from a male who told him to pay his ex-wife, [Ms A], or they would get him when he returned to Lebanon. He stated that he fears for his safety if he returns to Lebanon as he believes that these people are active members of Hezbollah who control everything in Lebanon, including the airport.

32. During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that after his telephone conversation with [Ms A] [in] February 2012 he tried to contact her but her telephone was disconnected. He stated that in June 2012 she telephoned him and asked him for $[amount] He stated that she needed to get passports for her children so that she could bring them back from Lebanon. He stated that he agreed to give her the money because he wanted to get a divorce and she agreed to sign the papers for the divorce. He stated that after he gave her the money she did not do what she said she would do. He stated that he had to pay someone to find her and serve the divorce papers on her.

33. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that after a couple of months he found out that [Ms A] had to attend Court in relation to a drug offence involving her and her family. He stated that he went to the Court and waited outside for her. He stated that when she came out she saw him and said to him that she did not have time for him as she had a lot of problems. He stated that he has had no further contact with her since he spoke to her outside the Court in 2012. He stated that he tried to find her but no one knew anything about her. When asked if he had contact with anyone else connected to her, he responded no. He stated that when he was trying to finalize the divorce papers he tried to find someone connected to her but was unable to do so. This version of his evidence is not consistent with his submission to the Department dated [in] January 2015.

34. However, during the course of the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant why he applied for a Protection visa and he responded that [Ms A] threatened him. When asked when she threatened him, he responded that when he saw her at Court she said she did not have time for him, just leave her alone, they know where he lives in Lebanon and she will get him there. When asked why she would make such a threat, he responded that she has a big problem in Court and he does not know whether she meant her threat. When asked why she would want to get him, he responded that he always keeps calling her and he paid a lot of money to find her. He stated that he did not take the threat seriously.

35. This version of what [Ms A] said when he spoke to her outside the Court is inconsistent with the applicant’s earlier evidence to the Tribunal in relation to their conversation. Secondly, his evidence that [Ms A] threatened him because he always keeps calling her is also inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he was unable to contact [Ms A] by telephone after she left the marriage [in] February 2012 because her telephone was disconnected. Thirdly, his evidence to the Tribunal that he did not take [Ms A]’s threat seriously is also inconsistent with his claims in his visa application that [Ms A] is a member of Hezbollah, she reported him to Hezbollah and that he fears that he will be kidnapped by Hezbollah when he arrives at the airport in Lebanon. Fourthly, this is inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he did not have contact with anyone connected to [Ms A]. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.

1. In his request for Ministerial intervention lodged [in] August 2014, the applicant stated that [Ms A] contacted him in June 2012 and asked him to help her out by giving her $[amount]. He stated that he agreed to give her the money if she gave him an affidavit that said she was never legally divorced and that she had been threatened by her husband. He stated that she agreed but then disappeared and he could not locate her. He stated that he then found out that she was going to Court in December 2012 on a Police matter and was able to serve the divorce papers on her. He made no mention of her threatening him when he spoke to her outside the Court, he made no mention of her husband or anyone else telephoning him and threatening him. He also made no mention of his fears of being kidnapped by Hezbollah from the airport or of him being in the Lebanese Forces political party.

2. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that if these things had happened it would have expected him to have mentioned them in his request for Ministerial intervention when setting out his reasons for not wanting to leave Australia and return to Lebanon. He declined to respond.

3. In his written submissions to the Department dated [in] January 2015, the applicant claimed that soon after he spoke to [Ms A] outside the Court he received a telephone call from a male person telling him to pay his ex-wife [Ms A] or they will get him when he returned to Lebanon. He stated that he did not take this threat seriously as he had no intention of returning to Lebanon. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed this claim with him. He stated that he received the telephone call before he saw [Ms A] outside the Court. He stated that the telephone call was not from her husband/ex-husband but from someone close to her. When asked what the person said, he responded that he was told to leave [Ms A] alone, that he was not allowed to meet her or follow her and if he did not stop they will get him. When asked if anything else was said, he answered no. He stated that he did not take this threat seriously. When asked if he heard from [Ms A] or any of her family members or friends again, he answered no.

4. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is inconsistent with his written submission to the Department dated [in] January 2015 in relation to whom he spoke to, when he spoke to him and what he said. Secondly, it makes no sense that he would have been warned before he met [Ms A] outside the Court in December 2012, not to meet her or follow her if the only telephone contact or personal contact he had with her between [date] February 2012 an December 2012 was in June 2012 when she instigated the contact.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he thinks the man he spoke to on the telephone is a member of Hezbollah, he responded because they are from the same area that Hezbollah comes from. When asked whether he was just speculating, he responded that when [Ms A] met him she told him that she is from that area and that she is a member of Hezbollah. When asked whether he married her in spite of that, he answered yes. The Tribunal finds this evidence to be implausible. When asked why he fears that he will be kidnapped at the airport upon his arrival in Lebanon, he responded that Hezbollah controlled everything. When asked why Hezbollah would be interested in him, he responded that he did not know. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise further concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.  

6. In his visa application, the applicant claimed that he fears returning to Lebanon because he is an active member of the Lebanese Forces. He stated that he became a member of the Lebanese Forces political party two years before he came to Australia. When asked how he became a member of this political party, he responded that this party has been around for a long time and that everyone in the village is a part of this party. When asked whether he was a supporter or a member of this party, he responded that he was a supporter. He stated that his parents are also supporters of this party. When asked what he could tell the Tribunal about the policies of the Lebanese Forces political party, he responded that they protect them. He stated that the purpose of this party is to protect Christians. When asked if they have any other policies, he answered no. He stated that he has never voted in an election in Lebanon. The Tribunal found this evidence to be unconvincing.

7. The Tribunal asked the applicant why it was a problem for him to go back to Lebanon. He responded that Lebanon is surrounded by terrorists and that they do not know when the terrorists will enter Lebanon. When the Tribunal noted that this affects the entire population of Lebanon, not just him, he responded that he is married and has [number] children and what would happen if they went there. He stated that they could bomb his children. When the Tribunal noted that there may be a threat of generalised violence in the country but it is not specific to him, he responded that he supports the Lebanese Forces political party and there are always problems between them and Hezbollah. He stated that Hezbollah controls everything.

8. In his visa application, the applicant claimed that as a Catholic Maronite he will be subjected to “all kinds of harm” by Islamist fanatics. The Tribunal discussed this claim with the applicant during the course of the hearing. When asked if he ever had any problems in Lebanon because he is a Maronite, he answered no. He stated that his parents had problems in the past. He stated that there was a war in his village and near his village about fifteen years ago. When asked why he claims that as a Catholic Maronite he will be subject to harm by Islamist fanatics, he responded that he is not saying he fears farm from all Muslims. He stated that he only fears harm from Hezbollah.

9. The Tribunal has considered the DFAT Country Information Report on Lebanon dated 18 December 2015 and the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to this review.

   Findings

10. Having considered all the applicant’s claims, the evidence and the submissions, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth. The Tribunal finds that he embellished some of his claims and fabricated others for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.

11. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant last arrived in Australia [in] July 2011 as the holder of a Prospective Spouse visa. The Tribunal accepts that this visa was issued to him on the basis of his engagement to his [relative], [Ms C]. The Tribunal accepts that his relationship with [Ms C] ended four or five months after his arrival in Australia and that he did not inform the Department of this. The Tribunal accepts that he married a woman named [Ms A] [in] February 2012. The Tribunal has serious doubts as to whether this was a genuine relationship. The Tribunal accepts that this marriage lasted [number] days and that [Ms A] left the marriage [in] February 2012.

12. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant contacted [Ms A] by telephone [in] February 2012 and that she told him that her husband knows that she married a Christian man, that he threatened her that she would not see her [number] children again and that her children are in Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that he was not aware that she had been previously married and had [number] children. It is not clear from the evidence whether [Ms A] entered into a bigamous marriage or whether she had divorced her first husband. The Tribunal accepts that [Ms A]’s telephone was disconnected after [date] February 2012 and the applicant was thereafter unable to contact her by telephone. The Tribunal accepts that he had no contact with her between [date] February 2012 and June 2012.  

13. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s marriage to [Ms A] broke down because she asked him to convert to Islam and he refused. The Tribunal also does not accept that his marriage broke down because she found out that he was an active member of the Lebanese Forces political party.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant applied for a Partner visa [in] February 2012 on the basis of his marriage to [Ms A] and did not inform the Department that his marriage to [Ms A] ended [in] February 2012. The Tribunal accepts that he then set about trying to divorce [Ms A] but had difficulty doing so because he was unable to locate her or communicate with her. The Tribunal accepts that in June 2012 [Ms A] contacted him by telephone, told him she needed help and asked him for the sum of $[amount]. The Tribunal accepts that he agreed to give her the money if she co-operated with him to obtain the divorce. The Tribunal accepts that he met her in June 2012, gave her the money and that she then did not follow through with her part of the agreement.

15. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant hired a process server to locate [Ms A]and serve divorce papers on her. The Tribunal accepts that he subsequently found out that she was attending Court in December 2012, went to the Court, waited outside for her and arranged for her to be served with the divorce papers. The Tribunal accepts that she told him that she was in a lot of trouble and did not need more trouble from him. The Tribunal does not accept that she threatened him. The Tribunal does not accept that her ex-husband or, alternatively, her husband or, alternatively, someone close to her telephoned the applicant and made threats to him.

16. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant withdrew his application for a Partner visa after he divorced [Ms A]. The Tribunal accepts that his application for a Partner visa was refused by the Department [in] July 2013, he lodged an application for review with the MRT [in] July 2013 and withdrew his application for review [in] July 2014. The Tribunal accepts that he lodged a request for Ministerial intervention [in] September 2014 and this request was unsuccessful [in] September 2014. The Tribunal accepts that he married [Ms B] [in] November 2013 and then lodged another application for a Partner visa on the basis of his marriage to [Ms B]. The Tribunal accepts that the Department found it was not a valid application. The Tribunal accepts that he has [number] children of his marriage to [Ms B].

17. The Tribunal does not accept that [Ms A] or her family are members of Hezbollah or that they are from an area in Lebanon where there are many members of Hezbollah or that she told this to the applicant. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this.

18. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a member or, alternatively, a supporter of the Lebanese Forces political party. The Tribunal accepts that his parents support this party. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would be at risk of serious harm for this reason if he returns to Lebanon.   

19. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Catholic Maronite. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that he would be at risk of serious harm from members of Hezbollah for this reason if he returns to Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is of adverse interest to Hezbollah for any of the reasons claimed.   

20. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the presence of terrorist organizations such as Islamic State in the Middle East may cause instability and even generalised violence in that region, it is not satisfied that this threat is specific to the applicant. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would be at risk of serious harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Lebanon.

21. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant would be at risk of persecution on the grounds of his religion, actual or implied political opinion or any other Refugee Convention reason if he returns to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugee Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he 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 applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm

22. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims under complementary protection. 

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

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

25. Accordingly, 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 to Lebanon, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. 

26. In his written submissions to the Department dated [in] January 2015, the applicant requested that his case be referred to the Minister for Ministerial intervention. The applicant is represented by a migration agent and this is a matter for the applicant and his migration agent to consider. 

    CONCLUSION

27. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

28. There is no suggestion that the 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 applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.

    DECISION

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

Linda Symons

         

Member