1502863 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 128

1502863 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 128 (3 January 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1502863

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan

DATE:3 January 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 03 January 2017 at 9:16am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Lebanon – Religion – Sunni Muslim – Religious communal violence – False charges – Rejection by family – Employment with Christian organisation

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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 applicant who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visas [in] April 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] February 2015.

3. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 14 October 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [the] applicant’s husband. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Protection Visa Application

4. The applicant claimed that she used to live in [District 1] and her apartment was exposed to bullets, explosives and fires and was no longer suitable to live in. All entry points to the apartment are directly exposed to these threats. [In] August 2013 two bombs blew up two mosques, one of which was one minute away from her apartment.  Their family [business] was no longer running profitably and their stores have been exposed to explosions and armed robbery threats. Once her [brother] was nearly killed by an explosive thrown at the stores. 

5. She was hit [by] one of the bullets that left her with a surface wound and she was exposed to bullets while driving in her car.  She often had to sleep in a friend’s house as she couldn’t get to her apartment.  Alawi Muslims are targeting Sunni Muslims for their lives.  The conflict is taking a similar shape to that of the Syrian conflict.  There are no places to hide as the conflict is spreading to all areas of Tripoli; there may be a truce for a few days then the fighting continues.

   Tribunal Hearing

6. The applicant’s husband remained in the room throughout because of the presence of a young child.  A number of documents were gone through including a copy of the family [company] that was now run by her brothers and was still trading.  The title deed for their house in [Country 1] dated [in] December 2012 was also presented.  They no longer possessed the house and sold it in December 2013.  Her husband said that there were other documents attached including the bank certified cheque.  Asked how much it was sold for he claimed that [amount of local currency] and [amount of local currency] was what he received after the money was received and the mortgage paid off. 

7. She claimed that she couldn’t get the title deed to their house in Lebanon because her brother was in jail.  She was asked why her brother being in jail meant she couldn’t get the title deed as her mother could get it for her or someone else.  She claimed that he had the key to the bsafe and it was put to her that they could get a copy from the registration office.  Her husband said they had a copy of the registration details such as where the block was and the owner.  The interpreter read out details that the area of the property was [District 2].

8. She claimed that when she submitted the application they had a war but people were saying the situation was a bit better and she may not be targeted.  She claimed her father was in danger and all her brothers were in jail.  She was scared about her children and herself and what had happened to her brother could happen to her. Asked who was targeting her brother she claimed they were criminals and her brothers were in jail unjustly.  She didn’t know why they were in jail.

9. She was advised to focus her claim on serious harm to herself.  She claimed this was new to her and some people wanted revenge on her brother.  She was scared that someone would shoot her in Lebanon; the same people who were against her family.  Neither she nor her family knew who these people were.  She was the closest person to her brother and they would target her.  She hadn’t made this claim previously.  There was also another brother who was shot at.

10. She was again asked to clarify her claim.  She claimed that if she returned to Lebanon she may be shot because there were people after her brother. She claimed if she went to Lebanon her husband couldn’t come with her and they would take her children.  At this point the applicant broke down and an adjournment was ordered.

11. After the adjournment she claimed the situation in Tripoli was not good, neither was the situation in Lebanon and it was about to experience war.  It was put to her that there was no evidence that the country was about to erupt in war, the Member knew Lebanon well and had taken his family on holiday there last December.  She needed to advise what personal harm she feared.

12. She again claimed that war was about to come. She claimed the member had written an article saying Hizbullah couldn’t be controlled by the Lebanese Army and that she feared her children being taken away.  She claimed Syria was beside them and there was a real chance the war was coming. She claimed that people came to the house and shot women but the army didn’t do anything.

13. She claimed that she lived in [District 1] and it was put to her that the document she had brought regarding the title of their house said it was in [District 2].  She claimed that the area was called [District 2] but she lived in [District 1]; it was put to her that these were two different areas.  She claimed that she didn’t know why the paper said this.  Asked if she knew where she had said previously in her application where she lived, she claimed she had lived in [District 1] since 2000. She didn’t know why there was confusion as she hadn’t seen the title deed before.

14. The problems regarding her brothers being targeted began around five months ago.  There was problems between [a] judge and her brother.  There was no judgment yet in his case. Some people had been fighting but there was no case against her brother, who had been in jail for three months.  First, [a number] of her brothers were put in jail.  Her mother had been threatened over the phone, unknown people saying one of her brothers would be killed by them.

15. Asked why she would be targeted if the problem was with her brothers, she claimed she would try to defend him.  Asked if she still feared harm according to her previous claim, she claimed that she was more scared now because she had children.  She still feared the problems between Sunni and Shi’a from when she lived in [District 1]. She had people shooting at her and she suffered injustices.

16. It was put to her that she had claimed to have been shot at while living in [District 1] yet the title deed said the house was in [District 2].  She was asked to provide any documents proving she lived in [District 1] such as utilities bills, or a bank statement; things generated by a computer.  There was a problem with the veracity of documents from Lebanon; letter from mukhtars for example did not carry much weight.  She claimed she would get a title deed showing the house was in [District 1]. It was put to her that there were people from Tripoli claiming to be from [District 1] so the Member preferred computer-generated documents rather than things that were hand-written.

17. Asked why she couldn’t relocate, she claimed she couldn’t afford to move as his salary was lower.  It was put to her that people adjusted to their income.  She was asked why her husband couldn’t work and she claimed she couldn’t give residence to her husband or children.  Her husband worked [at Employer 1] in [Country 1]. She was asked if he had looked for work with [Employer 1] in Lebanon and she claimed they wouldn’t employ non-Lebanese.  She was asked if he had tried and she claimed he hadn’t because the situation was unsettled and he was scared. It was put to her that he could have at least enquired. 

18. She claimed she was applying for Australia at the time; they came here for her husband to [study].  After he finished his study the intent was that he would work in Australia.  Asked when they applied for a visa they said he wanted to work in Australia or [Country 1] with the qualification.  She claimed when they applied he intended to work in [Country 1] but no one would give him any work and she had problems with his family.  Asked if he had applied for jobs in [Country 1], and she claimed he hadn’t. 

19. She was asked how she knew he wouldn’t be given a job if he hadn’t applied for any, and she repeated her claim there were lots of problems with his family.  Her children would be taken from her by his family; his mother-in-law had told her that she wouldn’t accept any children from a Lebanese. She would be divorced and lose everything. It was put to her that her husband seemed close to her, they had money and another child coming and she claimed there were tribes in [Country 1] and they could find them anywhere.  She was insecure with her family-in-law and her brothers came twice to collect her.

20. After she was married she went to Lebanon in May and about five or six times in total. Once she stayed there for [number] days.  Her uncle’s wife kicked her out.  Asked why, if Lebanon was so dangerous she returned there five or six times.  She claimed she had so many problems in [Country 1]; his mother hit her more than once.  She was asked the question again and claimed the first time she was pregnant, the second time her mother-in-law kicked her out and she was psychologically deteriorating. If they didn’t send her to Lebanon her [child] wouldn’t have died.

21. Country information was put to her that said the security situation in Lebanon was under the control of the Lebanese Armed Forces, there were concerns with her address in Lebanon and she had returned five or six times voluntarily.  She was asked to provide some country information that would indicate her [brothers] had been arrested; such as a newspaper report, a police charge sheet or something objective.

22. It was also put to her that if she felt she couldn’t return to Lebanon she could go to [Country 1] and even though she may have problems with her in-laws this wouldn’t be the first time this occurred.  She claimed they had no home and no money.  She had saved no money in Australia, but said she had [relatives] here although her family was her husband and child.

23. Her husband then spoke on her behalf and was told that he couldn’t raise separate claims on her behalf.  He claimed that there was a travel warning for Lebanon from the Australian Embassy in Beirut – it was put to him that this applied to Australian citizens.  He cited an article on the Lebanese army written by the member and he was advised that this applied to the town of Arsal, not Tripoli.  He also claimed that their children would not be [Country 1] citizens and the applicant couldn’t live in Lebanon as a citizen or buy property.  He was advised that his wife could buy property on the family’s behalf.

24. He further claimed that she had not mentioned about a dispute involving the applicant’s brothers and that [a number] had been jailed, [a number] released but the most important brother remained in jail.  He thought that people related to the person involved in the dispute with her brother began arriving at her sister-in-law’s and shot at it.  A fight ensued.  He was asked why people would go to the house of the brother’s wife with weapons and he claimed it was all part of the dispute. In 2013 there was another brother injured by a grenade and [other] brothers injured.  They were operated on and he was asked to provide the hospital records as evidence.  This was on the news and they may also be able to provide a police report.

25. Their families were against the marriage and particularly against him marrying a Lebanese; the family wanted to marry within the tribe.  Her family didn’t want her to move to [Country 1] because of the sexual harassment.  She was constantly harassed by men there even if she was with him.  Her family still rejected her; he claimed they stayed with her parents for one or two days only.  They just visited or she stayed overnight if she was sick with the child.  Asked how she could stay overnight if they rejected her, he claimed they still mistreated her even when she atyed there.  Her mother slapped his wife in the face.

26. Asked why they didn’t just live apart.  He claimed they did but they were subject to this whenever they visited.  His brother also lived next to him so the family came to see them also and arguments would ensue.  He was asked why he didn’t buy a new apartment elsewhere; he claimed he couldn’t afford because he had a [mortgage].  It was put to him that he had $[amount] and worked in a [business] and could move elsewhere to a cheaper area.  He claimed it would be further away from work and would take longer to return to his house if she had problems.

27. When he came to study in Australia, he had claimed on his education visa application that he had a work offer from his [employer] in [Country 1], but he never had this in mind.  They had no particular plans and even thought about living in Lebanon.  He didn’t complete his study as there was a lot of pressure, a baby was coming and he had to support his wife. He was unable to do his studies financially because of the expenses.  It was put to him that evidence of funds was part of the application.  He studied for two or three months doing [a course] at [an education provider] but didn’t finish.  He could only work for 20 hours a week so had no part-time work even though he was a qualified [occupation].

28. He claimed he was asked during his DIBP interview why his wife had never raised the issue of her being slapped by her mother-in-law with the police and said that this was because of the tribal retribution that would have occurred.  He also claimed that his wife needed to live in [Country 1] for three years with her husband before she could apply for [Country 1] citizenship, she would have to drop her Lebanese citizenship.  This would have bad consequences with her family.  He then said that they were currently happy with being in Australia.  If they returned to Lebanon or [Country 1] they would have to separate.

29. He claimed he was employed by [a Christian organisation] and claimed that his family thought he had converted to Christianity.  It was put to him that he could not make a claim on his own behalf as he was not an applicant.

    Second Tribunal Hearing

30. A second hearing was held to address a claim made by the second-named applicant during the first hearing that was not addressed during that hearing.  The applicant submitted a screen shot of a message that he claimed came from his mother that was given to the interpreter who stated that it said: ‘You are not my son. I don’t know you any more.  You are a non-believer, have left the religion. May God be angry with you.’  There was no date on the message and the applicant said he had received it on [a date in] June 2016 just after he started work with [the Christian organisation], and he could show the Tribunal the original on his phone.

31. The Tribunal examined the phone and the phone number of his mother. The entry had a [Social Media] address and the applicant confirmed that this was his mother’s but he wasn’t sure if it was still active.  He was asked to bring up the [Social Media] page which he did.  There was a photo of the applicant and his children on his mother’s [Social Media] page from November 2016.

32. He claimed that if he returned to [Country 1] he would be perceived to be a Christian convert by his family (parents and extended family) and he could be estranged from society and killed.  He then said that he could be killed by any Islamic extremist.

33. He claimed that Muslims didn’t work in Christian organisation and that anyone that did would be considered converts.  He was not religious himself; he claimed he was secular liberal but when asked whether he was religious at all he said he was not religious at all and was an atheist.  He had been atheist all his life including his college life.  He had adopted the term secular liberal to describe himself because he had problems being an atheist in [Country 1]; friends had rejected him, he had to sit long periods with sheikhs. 

34. He lost friends and people’s respect.  No serious harm happened to him though, but he thought if he returned now as an atheist he may be killed.  He had no country information to support this but claimed recently a Christian had been shot in front of the court.  Asked why the Christian had been charged he didn’t recall but it was put to him that there was an insulting cartoon of Muhammad drawn by him and he agreed.  Asked what this event had to do with an atheist, he claimed intolerance in Islam meant that converts would be killed.  He was working in a [Christian organisation] and would be perceived to be a convert.

35. It was put to him that Christians ran organisations in [Country 1] and non-Muslims worked there.  He claimed that they weren’t identifiably Christian places so had no religious identity.  iT was put to him that in [Town 1] there was a hospital run by [Christians] who had more than [number] Muslim external consultants and Muslim doctors on staff.  They spoke positively of their experience and he was asked why there was no targeting of these doctors.  He claimed that he was unaware of this case but there may have been a shortage of doctors that meant they had to hire Muslims.

36. Asked why extremists weren’t gunning down Muslim doctors working for the hospital and thereby force the [Christians] to close the hospital.  He was asked how the extremists would know that eh was working in [a Christian organisation] in Australia and he said he didn’t know but perhaps from his resume, or family or [Country 1 citizens] living in Australia.  A range of other Christian [related agency] names were read out to him that indicated the number of them.

37. He claimed that sometimes people didn’t know that certain facilities were Christian organisations.  It was put to him that it was in the media, and that [deleted] running a hospital might indicate it was Christian. He claimed that his mother may have found out via [Social Media] that he worked at [the Christian organisation]. She thought he converted and cut him off.  She never asked him.  It was put to him that he had showed the Tribunal a [Social Media] page that showed his mother sharing a photo of her grandchildren and son and daughter-in-law.  He claimed he was shocked when he saw this. 

38. It was put to him that it was inconsistent that his mother allegedly disowned him (although there was no way of verifying that she had written it) in June and then was sharing photos of him in December. He repeated he was shocked and that perhaps it was a sign for reconciliation.  He was asked if he had any evidence that converts were killed in [Country 1] and he said he would try to.  

39. His witness was called via the phone.  He said he had met the applicant and his family and gave him a glowing reference.  He claimed the mixed marriage was dangerous for them and the applicant’s parents believed that he had converted because he worked at [the Christian organisation].  He was asked what he knew of their situation in [Country 1], he claimed there would be problems because his tribe thought he had converted, although he was a secular person.

1. He was asked what he knew regarding the problems regarding the perceived conversion, he claimed he was from the region.  He was from [Town 2] in Lebanon and then went to Beirut before coming to Australia.  He claimed he travelled to [Country 1] with [an agency] and it was more peaceful than Lebanon but there were problems with the tribes.  He claimed he knew of a religious convert who was now in hiding in [Country 1]; he based this on what the person he was speaking about told him.

2. Asked if he was aware of non-Christians working in Christian organisations in [Country 1] he claimed that he was not aware of any.  It was difficult and was really an issue if someone did this as there would be fears that they would be converted.  The country information regarding the [Town 1] Hospital was put to him and he claimed that this was correct but people looked for work in hospitals and schools and when it was visible it was okay.

3. He claimed that the applicant’s parents were suspicious because he was in Australia and had married someone from a different faith.  He claimed it was different because he worked in a church, rather than a hospital.  People heard stories and so had suspicions.  It was put to him that he had said that Muslims never worked in Christian organisations, and he said this applied to people working in churches only.  It was put to him that only clergy worked in churches.  He was asked if he knew of any country information that would support his claim that people returning to [Country 1] from overseas having worked for a Christian organisation had been targeted he said that he didn’t.  He then agreed that it was okay for Muslims to work for Christian organisations inside [Country 1] because people needed jobs and there was no conversion but that it was not okay for them to work for Christian organisations outside [Country 1].

4. Asked about the relation with the mother, he claimed that she thought he had converted.  They still talked and had a tense relationship but they didn’t have a good relationship with his wife.  The applicant always asked the witness to pray for him.  Asked if the applicant was religious, he claimed that he wasn’t but he believed that everyone had their own God.  The applicant believed in his personal God; he wasn’t atheist.  The applicant had never told the witness he was atheist and always asked the witness to pray for him and his family.

5. The applicant claimed that he couldn’t tell the witness he was an atheist as he kept it to himself because it was dangerous to do so.  It was put to him that the Tribunal needed to test his credibility and there was no danger to atheists in Australia.  Asked how people looked at atheists in Australia, he claimed they were abused and rejected and thought that they had no morals.  It was put to him that around 20 per cent of the population were atheists.  The witness had never volunteered that he was an atheist and the Tribunal said that he ahd actually asked the witness to pray for him which was different to not volunteering his atheism.

6. He was advised about s 424AA and it was put to him about the discussion the Tribunal had with the witness about the applicant asking him to pray for him which could call into question his claim to be atheist and also the fact that the applicant had spoken to his mother a few weeks ago according to the witness and any problems appeared to be with his wife. This was also inconsistent with his claim to have been disowned by his mother in June.

7. He claimed his mother still called him from time to time because he was still her son.  His mother was forwarding his sister-in-law’s photo and was just informing the family, not welcoming him.  He kept his atheism private since the end of his college years and spoke to nobody about this.  The witness didn’t know he was an atheist.  He claimed that his wife was liberal and his family thought his wife was keeping him away from his religion.  He claimed he was only in Australia because of his wife; it was put to him that he came to Australia to study. He claimed this was to support his wife.

8. He remained fearful of his family and thought they would not believe him that he had converted.  He had been in a relationship with a Christian girl previously and his family threatened to kill him.  He was asked and said he had not raised this issue previously as he didn’t want his wife to know.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The first-named applicant arrived in Australia on a [temporary] visa [in] January 2014 as the dependant of her husband (the second-named applicant) who entered on a student visa.  She lodged a protection visa application [in] April 2014. 

10. The applicant is [an age] year old, married Sunni Muslim originally from Lebanon but resident with her husband in [Country 1] before coming to Australia.  She claimed that if she returned to Lebanon she would be shot because there were people after her brother, and she feared that her children would be taken away from her. 

11. In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth.  Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed.  The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.

12. I found the applicant’s evidence regarding her claims to lack credibility.  For reasons set out below I did not find the applicant to be a reliable, credible or truthful witness, and that she fabricated her entire claim in order to be granted a protection visa.

    Tribunal Considerations

13. While the second-named applicant did not submit his own application for protection, he made an oral claim during the first-named applicant’s hearing and a second hearing was arranged in order to address his claim.  As a consequence, the term ‘the applicant’ is generally used for the first-named applicant. The Tribunal considered the first-named applicant’s country of reference to be Lebanon and the second-named’s country of reference to be [Country 1].

    Residential Location

14. I find the applicant’s residence in Tripoli is in [District 2] and not [District 1] as she claimed. These are two distinct and separate areas within Tripoli.[1] I make this finding based on the computer-generated document from the Lebanese government website that they brought to the hearing that stated the location of the residence as [District 2].  I lend this document more weight than the untranslated document provided post-hearing (folio 95) that contains hand-written entries on a document of unknown provenance that could have been produced on any home computer.  She had been asked to provide evidence such as utilities bills or bank statements that showed her address yet failed to do so.

    [1] [Information deleted].

15. Because I do not accept that she lived in [District 1], it follows that she was not affected by Sunni-Shi’a problems in [District 1] when she lived there, that she was shot at or grazed by a [bullet], that she was exposed to bullets, explosives and fires and was no longer suitable to live in as all entry points were exposed to fire..

    Problems with brothers

16. I also do not accept their claim that her brother(s) had been arrested one of them was being targeted by a [judge].  This claim relies on her oral testimony only, which I have found to lack credibility. I have taken into account the evidence provided in support of this claim post-hearing but give it little weight.  There were a number of links to social media sites, all of which were in Arabic and untranslated.

17. I do not accept that the case is so sensitive that there are no police, court or legal documents or that a news gag is in place that precludes any reporting of the matter.  Rather, I find that this is simply a way of explaining the absence of supporting information.  I have taken into account the document that the applicant claims was a court decision (folio 123) provided post-hearing however lend it little weight.  It is untranslated and a photocopy of a document that could have been produced on any home computer.  I also give the photos little weight as they show military deployed in the street outside a store called ‘[name]’ yet there is nothing to indicate that the store is open, let alone the subject of the military activity.

18. Because I do not accept that the brothers have been subject to detention by the Lebanese authorities due to any dispute, it follows that her sister-in-law wasn’t shot at or that there is any individual or group looking to target the applicant because of the sins of her brother.

    Other issues

19. I do not accept that the security situation was dangerous in Lebanon and she would be caught up in it if she returned.  She returned there from [Country 1] five or six time between 2012 and leaving in January 2014 which doesn’t indicate an unwillingness to return.  The Member is familiar with Lebanon and took his family with him there on holiday in December 2015 without difficulty and did not sense impending war. The Member returned alone in April 2016 to a peaceful Lebanon.

20. I also do not accept that they would be without income in Lebanon.  While I accept that non-Lebanese need a sponsor for employment in that country the applicant’s husband worked for [Employer 1] in [Country 1] and could have at least asked about the possibility of transfer to one of the several branches of the [employer] in Lebanon yet failed to do so.  The applicant herself could also find work given she has a supportive family network in the country who could assist with child-minding and raising responsibilities (as could her husband).

21. I am also not satisfied that [one] brother was nearly killed by an explosive device thrown at their store in Tripoli.  She was asked to provide hospital records and just provided a handwritten note on a hospital letterhead dated [in] October 2016.  I lend it little weight as it could have been written by anyone using an original or computer-generated piece of notepaper.

22. I also do not accept that she would not be able to have her children in Lebanon. It was not clear what she meant when she claimed that ‘they’ would take her children.  She has a supportive family to whom she is obviously close. If she meant the in-laws in [Country 1] then there is no need for her to return to that country before entering Lebanon.  That having been said, her claim regarding poor relations with her in-laws relies on the testimony of her and her husband, and I am not satisfied that this relationship is poor at all, let alone to the extent she makes out.  This finding is based on her lack of credibility as a witness.

    Husband’s claims

23. I do not accept that the second-named applicant is, or would be perceived to have converted to Christianity simply because he worked at an [agency] run by [a Christian organisation].  To begin with, there is no country information available to the Tribunal that supports such a claim, nor was the second-named applicant able to provide any despite being given the opportunity to do so post-hearing. Indeed the opposite is true; a perfunctory internet search shows a hospital in [Town 1] run by [Christians] that employs [Muslims] out of its [number] staff doctors, and [number] Muslims out of its [number] external consultants.[2]  Another article talks of the work of Christian and Muslim teachers employed at a Catholic school in [a different town].[3]

    [2] [Information deleted].

    [3] [Information deleted].

24. I do not accept that Muslims may have worked at Christian institutions because they didn’t know they were Christian. It was obvious from both articles that the institutions were manned by Catholic religious, so it would have been impossible to not know the religious identity of the workplace.  Because I do not accept that there is anything untoward for [Country 1] Muslims to work in Christian organisations in [Country 1], it follows that there is no problem in doing so in Australia.  It also follows that the applicant would not face serious harm from anyone in [Country 1] for doing so.

25. I also do not accept that his mother or family members have disowned the second-named applicant for working with [the Christian organisation].  I lend little weight to the text message he claims his mother sent him disowning him.  There is no way to prove that his mother was the author of it, and the applicant has proven to lack credibility as a witness.  I also note that his mother’s [Social Media] page included a photo of the applicants and children on the occasion of the birth of their latest child in Australia.  This occurred five months after he claimed she disowned him.  I lend more weight to this as an indication that the applicant enjoys a good relationship with his mother and, given that he claimed his mother was forwarding his sister-in-law’s photo of the birth then it would indicate that relations between both families are good enough that photos are shared.

26. I also do not accept that the second-named applicant is an atheist or had a previous relationship with a Christian girl and that his family threatened to kill him as a consequence.  He had mentioned neither of these issues previously even though he had the opportunity to do so, and he asked the witness to pray for him which is not indicative of someone is an atheist. I do not accept that he tried to hide his atheism because he was afraid of the consequences, given 22 per cent[4] of Australians do not have a religion, of which it is reasonable to believe that a large proportion would consider themselves atheist.

    [4] >

    I have taken into account the witness’ evidence but lend it little weight.  To begin with, he is from Lebanon and has only visited [Country 1] and has no first-hand knowledge of the applicant’s circumstances in either [Country 1] or Lebanon and has relied entirely on what they told him.  He was also inconsistent regarding the employment of Muslims in Christian organisations in [Country 1], initially saying that he was unaware of it occurring and that people that did would be considered to have converted, but then changed his evidence when advised about the hospital in [Town 1] he said it was okay if people were looking for work.  

27. I have taken into account the post-hearing submissions provided by the applicants however there is nothing in them that has given me cause to alter any of the findings I have made.  Having considered the applicants’ evidence both individually and cumulatively, for the reasons set out above the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary Protection

28. Because I do not accept that the first-named applicant has ever lived at [District 1], that her brother(s) have been targeted by any individual, group or judge, that her brother was wounded by an explosive device, that she would have no income in Lebanon, or would not have her children in Lebanon, or that the second-named applicant would be considered to have converted to Christianity and be targeted by his family or extremists, that his family has disowned him, that he had a previous relationship with a Christian girl or that he is an atheist, I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of significant harm on the basis of these claims as outlined in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).

29. Therefore, I do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to either Lebanon or [Country 1], there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

30. 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

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

    Rodger Shanahan
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT LAW

    1. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Part 866 of 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.

    2. 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).

    3. 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’).

    4. 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 – to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.