1504203 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4821

1504203 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4821 (14 December 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1504203

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:R. C. Titterton

DATE:14 December 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicants satisfy s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 14 December 2016 at 5:11pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Lebanon – Religion – Jehovah’s Witness – Proselytising – Threats of physical harm – Necessity to abstain from religious practice – State protection – Credible witness

LEGISLATION

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

CASES

Chan v Minster for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 160 CLR 379
Applicant S395/2002 v MIMIA [2003] HCA 71
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
Abede v The Commonwealth (1999) CLR 510

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 first named [applicant] is married to the second named [applicant]. Their young [children] are respectively the third, fourth and fifth applicants.

3. The applicants, who claim to be citizens of Lebanon, applied for the visas [in] August 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] March 2015.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 25 October 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. Neither [of the applicant parents] required the assistance of the interpreter in the Arabic language who was available.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

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. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

4. 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’).

5. 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.

6. The issue in this review is whether [the applicant] has a well-founded fear of serious harm amounting to persecution for reasons of a Convention ground, or whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia she will suffer significant harm.

EVIDENCE

1. The Tribunal had before it a large amount of information. In summary, the information included the following.

2. First, [the applicant’s] application filed [in] August 2014. [The applicant] claims to be a Jehovah’s Witness, and that he has been mistreated and harmed for that reason. He claims that he and his family have had to resort to significant self-imposed restrictions to counter threats of serious or significant harm. These restrictions have included significantly limiting his preaching activities and his participation in Jehovah Witness meetings and Congregations. He claims that in the past he has experienced harassment, threatened with violence and experienced actual physical violence on account of his faith. He claims that he fears that, if he returns to Lebanon, he will continue to face real threats of serious or significant harm because of his religion. He states that the level of self-imposed restrictions will render effective adherence to his faith untenable. He says that even when applying such a level of restriction he may still be subjected to serious or significant harm in light of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, increasing societal and religious intolerance, increased by the fact that the Jehovah’s Witness religion is not legally recognised in Lebanon.

3. Included with the application was information supporting [the applicant’s] claim that he is a practising Jehovah’s Witness. This information includes:

   ·photographs of [the applicant] attending Jehovah’s Witness Conventions over a period of years.

   ·The photographs of [the applicant] handing out Jehovah’s Witness literature (including the Watchtower).

   ·instructions given to [the applicant] for a presentation to be given to [an organisation] in January 2015.

4. As to personal information, [the applicant] was born in [Lebanon] on [date], and thus is [age] years old. He speaks reads and writes Arabic and English. He is married with [children], [ages specified].

5. Secondly, short submissions of [the applicant] in the form of an email dated [in] January 2015 sent to the Department after his interview. In that submission he states that in his family, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are highly vulnerable. He says that he has lived all his life in fear of harassment by his peers. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon are excluded from higher public functions and forced to register under one of the recognised religions in order to be accepted. He states that, if that was not done, he will not be able to marry, vote or inherit according to law. It states that he had to hide his real identity, and always worry about how people would react if they found out that he was a Jehovah’s Witness. He states that he always had to be careful when preaching and very selective with who, where and when he could tell people about his faith. He says the experience of seeing how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice their religion in Australia has been overwhelming. His submissions also refer to country information in the form of a travel warning indicating that the security situation in Lebanon for Christians was deteriorating, and that there was a high threat for Jehovah’s Witnesses (see warnings/Lebanon-travel-warning.html).

6. Thirdly, the decision of the delegate dated [in] March 2015. In summary, the delegate accepted that [the applicant] was a Jehovah’s Witness. The delegate found that [the applicant] was able to discuss his religion in a “knowledgeable, confident and spontaneous manner”, and found that there was “compelling evidence” to support his claims about his religion. The delegate was satisfied that [the applicant] was a member of the Jehovah’s Witness faith and that he practised his religion while living in Lebanon.

7. However, while the delegate found that [the applicant] had been subjected to some low-level harassment and discrimination, he had not been persecuted in Lebanon. The delegate found that [the applicant] had overstated the level of severity of the treatment he faced, the level of discretion that was required to attend religious meetings and the limitations imposed on his preaching activities. After considering country information, in particular the DFAT Country Report of February 2014, the delegate was not satisfied that Jehovah’s Witnesses faced community violence or were actively targeted by the authorities.

8. Fourthly, submissions provided by [the applicant’s] agent on 13 October 2016. These documents include detailed submissions, and includes a list of Tribunal decisions where claims similar to those of [the applicant] have been upheld.

9. Fifthly, various documents provided by [the applicant’s] agent on 18 October 2016. These documents included four statutory declarations, an Advance Health Care Directive of each for [the applicant parents], and a letter of the [Suburb 1] Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses dated [in] October 2016. The statutory declarations were signed by other members of the [Suburb 1] Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and attest to the [applicant’s] family’s involvement in that congregation. The Advance Health Care Directives state that each of [the applicant parents] are Jehovah’s Witnesses and direct that “no transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma be given to [either of them] under any circumstances, even if health care providers believe that such [steps] are necessary to preserve [their] life. (Acts 15:28, 29)”. The letter from the [Suburb 1] Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is signed by [Mr A], the Coordinator of the Body of Elders of the Congregation. [Mr A] states that [the applicant parents] are baptised members of the congregation, and are active and enthusiastic in Congregation activities.

10. Sixthly, further documents provided by [the applicant’s] agent on 4 November 2016. These documents include a copy of a recent Tribunal decision upholding claims similar to that of [the applicant], what are described as “supporting statements (from friends and relatives who have suffered persecution in Lebanon)” and a report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated 12 November 2013. The “supporting statement” is in fact a statement of [the applicant’s] [mother]. Relevantly, she states:

    I take this opportunity to highlight an incident that occurred with my other [son] in a nearby district to our home [just] a few days ago. It was last Sunday, and as per our usual habit, he had dedicated this day for the preaching work. He was accompanied by one of our brothers, a man in his [age]. As they approached a house they met a man in his [age], [name], who my son happen to know through his [work]. After the initial greeting the man asked my son about the nature of his visit. As soon as he heard that [my other son] was [a Jehovah’s Witness] and that he was coming to share with him the good news from the Bible, he turned violent and attacked both of them with punches and kicks, even towards the elderly gentleman.

    This is an example of what we are subjected to on a frequent basis, knowing that we don’t have any official rights with the Lebanese government since our activities is banned we don’t have any protection.

Evidence at the hearing

1. [The applicant parents], and their [young] children, attended the hearing. Lengthy evidence was given by [the applicant], who was the principal applicant, and some limited evidence was given by [his wife]. The Tribunal accepts each entirely as witnesses of credit, who gave their evidence in a forthright, convincing and believable fashion. [The applicant] did not appear to embellish his claims, and this assessment was underscored by [the applicant] giving some evidence which was not in his interests so to do. For instance, he said that he did not fear that he would be killed if he returned to Lebanon (“I can guarantee it”), when it would have been quite simple for him to have made that claim. He appeared genuinely concerned about returning to Lebanon, how he would be unable to practice his faith effectively there, and the potential for discrimination and harm to his small children.

CONSIDERATION

1. The early part of the hearing consisted of the Tribunal discussing with [the applicant] his religious beliefs and establishing, independently of the delegate, that [the applicant] was in fact a Jehovah’s Witness. We discussed such matters as when the belief system now known as Jehovah’s Witnesses was established, when the name Jehovah’s Witnesses was adopted, other fundamental tenets or beliefs that distinguishes Jehovah’s Witnesses from other Christians, the names of some of the literature which Jehovah’s Witnesses distribute while doorknocking, the name of the Supreme Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses baptism in the Jehovah’s Witness faith, whether Jehovah’s Witnesses recognised other religions as valid, where meetings for worship were held, and the attitude of Jehovah’s Witnesses to what are seen by some to be contentious issues such as homosexuality, same-sex marriage and tobacco. [The applicant]’s responses had the depth and knowledge commensurate with a life lived as Jehovah’s Witness

2. As with the delegate, the Tribunal found that [the applicant] was able to discuss his religion in a knowledgeable, confident and spontaneous manner, and found that there was compelling evidence to support his claims about his religion. The Tribunal finds therefore that he is and has been his entire life, a Jehovah’s Witness, was baptised into that religion [in] 1995. His wife was baptised in 2015. The Tribunal finds and accepts that [the applicant’s] father was an Elder in the Church, and on one occasion attacked by unknown persons while he was preaching. In addition, the Tribunal finds that, independent of [the applicant’s] oral evidence, the independent evidence (such as the Advance Health Directives, the dated photographs showing [the applicant] attending Jehovah’s Witnesses Conferences and the statutory declarations and the letter from [Mr A]) amply corroborate [the applicant’s] claims to be a Jehovah’s Witness.

3. The Tribunal has no doubt that the children will be brought up as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the information before the Tribunal, namely the coordinator of the Body of Elders of the [Suburb 1] Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, indicates that the [children] also attend Congregation meetings.

4. The Tribunal accepts and finds that [the applicant] was born into the Jehovah’s Witness faith and continues to be a practising adherent. The Tribunal accepts, like all Jehovah’s Witnesses he proselytises by preaching whenever he has the opportunity, but that in Lebanon he had to resort to adopting significant self-imposed restrictions in the normal practice of his faith, particularly in terms of his preaching activities in order to counter threats from hostile individuals and, from time to time, the Lebanese authorities.

5. The Tribunal accepts and finds that his brother was recently attacked by persons named in the letter submitted by [the applicant’s] mother referred to above, in the course of practising his faith.

6. In addition, the Tribunal finds that [the applicant’s] father is an Elder of the Church in Lebanon. The Tribunal finds and accepts that neighbours have stopped services which have been held in the family house. The Tribunal finds and accepts that [the applicant] has had rocks and stones thrown at him on many occasions.

7. [The applicant] fears ongoing discrimination, harm and mistreatment if he returns to Lebanon. He does not have a fear of being killed, but he does have a fear of being harmed, as happened to his father, and more recently his brother. He says that he would have to severely limit if not entirely eliminate his public preaching were he to return, which effectively means that he would not be able to practise adequately and appropriately as a Jehovah’s Witness. [The applicant’s] evidence about these matters appeared to be credible and unembellished.

Is [the applicant] a citizen of Lebanon?

1. The Tribunal has sighted a photocopy of the [the applicant’s] passport issued by the Republique Libanaise bearing the applicant’s name and date of birth. In the circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied that [the applicant] is a citizen of Lebanon and that the appropriate country of reference for the assessment of his refugee claims, and the receiving country for the purpose of his complementary protection claims, is Lebanon.

Does the applicant have the right to enter and reside in any other country?

1. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter or reside in any country other than Lebanon. Therefore the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not excluded from Australia’s protection by s 36(3) of the Act as he is a citizen of Lebanon.

Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention in Lebanon?

1. Various decisions of the Federal Court of Australia[1] have held that when determining whether a particular applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims made. This may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant. When assessing credibility, the Tribunal should recognise the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers in providing supporting evidence and should give the benefit of the doubt to an applicant who is generally credible but unable to substantiate all of his claims. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically each and every assertion made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal need not have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out. Nor is it obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant's country of nationality.

   [1] See for instance Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547.

2. The test for determining well-founded fear was explained by the High Court of Australia in Chan v Minster for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 160 CLR 379. The Court held that “well-founded fear involves both a subjective and objective element. The relevant question is whether the applicant has a present fear of harm in the reasonably foreseeably future.”[2] The subjective element concerns the state of mind of the applicant. The objective element means that there must be a factual or objective element to hold that fear; there must be a sufficient foundation for that fear.[3] As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] presently holds a fear of serious harm if he returns to Lebanon. The objective element requires a consideration of general information about conditions in the applicant’s country, in this case Lebanon, and an assessment of [the applicant’s] claims in light of any material provided in support of such claims.[4]

   [2] Guide to Refugee Law [available at Tribunal website at (Guide to Refugee Law) at page 3-3.

   [3]  Chan v MIEA per Dawson J at 396.

   [4] Guide to Refugee Law at page 3-3.

1. The process of establishing whether an applicant’s fear is well-founded involves making findings of fact based on an assessment of the applicant’s claims and relevant country information, speculation as to the reasonably foreseeable future and a finding as to whether there is a real chance that persecution will occur.[5] Evidence that the applicant has been persecuted in the past gives powerful support to the conclusion that the claimed fear is well-founded.[6] But what has occurred in the past is not enough to satisfy the real chance test: the essence of the test is the process of looking to the future.[7] An applicant does not have to show past persecution in order to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.[8]

   [5] See Guide to Refugee Law at page 3-6 footnote 22 and the authorities there cited.

   [6] Abede v The Commonwealth (1999) CLR 510 per Gleeson CJ and McHugh at [82].

   [7] See Guide to Refugee Law at page 3-7 footnote 39 and the authorities there cited.

   [8] See Guide to Refugee Law at page 3-8.

2. In assessing whether an applicant’s fear is well-founded it is necessary to consider the totality of their experiences.[9] While it is permissible, and appropriate, to consider general country information about people in a similar position, the central question is whether the individual applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted.[10]

   [9] See Guide to Refugee Law at page 3-8.

   [10] See Guide to Refugee Law at page 3-11 footnote 69 and the authorities there cited.

3. The Tribunal now turns to the relevant country information.

4. The starting point for assessment of country information is the DFAT Country Report for Lebanon dated 18 December 2015. The Report relevantly states:

   Religion

   3.10 For mainstream religious and social groups in Lebanon, the political and legal system is generally free from discrimination on the basis of religion. The Lebanese Constitution guarantees freedom of religious practice and association. Eighteen religious groups are officially recognised in Lebanon’s political structure (as set out in the Taef Accord), including four Muslim sects, 12 Christian sects, the Druze sect and Judaism.

   3.11 Lebanon’s political system puts religious association at the heart of Lebanon’s official practice. DFAT assesses that the confessional structure is designed to support diverse political representation, rather than to exclude certain groups in a discriminatory manner. However, rights to political representation and public sector employment are arguably limited by Lebanon’s confessional political system, under which positions are allocated to religious sects (see ‘Political System’).

   3.12 Overall, Lebanon is a diverse country with a high degree of religious tolerance. DFAT assesses that there are limited examples of individuals being targeted on the basis of their religion alone, and that discrimination and violence are more likely linked to political views than religious affiliations. Nonetheless, there is some low-level societal discrimination against particular religious groups in some areas of Lebanon. In particular, DFAT assesses that inter-confessional relationships and marriages can attract significant societal and official discrimination and, in some circumstances violence. However, traditionally, sectarian violence has been the main issue confronting religious and political groups in Lebanon (see ‘Security Situation’ and below).  . . .

Unrecognised Religious Groups

3.36 Small numbers of Lebanese practice minority religions that are not officially recognised, including Buddists, Baha’i, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Individuals are generally able to convert to these religious groups, perform religious rites and proselytise without attracting official or societal discrimination or violence.

3.37 Given that positions within Lebanon’s political system are only allocated to the 18 recognised religious groups, unrecognised religious groups are de facto excluded from political representation. However, workarounds are available and DFAT understands that some unrecognised religious groups have incorporated as non-government organisations in order to participate in some quasi-political processes. Individuals can also register to vote as one of the recognised religious groups.

3.38 Recognised religious groups within Lebanon administer personal and family status laws on behalf of their communities. Therefore, unrecognised religious groups cannot perform legally recognised marriage or divorce proceedings, nor do they have standing to determine inheritance issues (members of unrecognised religious groups can, however, own property).

3.39 Overall, DFAT assesses that there are low levels of official and societal discrimination against members of unrecognised religious groups, exemplified by their de facto exclusion from a number of political and societal practices. DFAT assesses that unrecognised religious groups are not at risk from official or societal violence.

1. As well as providing certain country information, [the applicant’s] agent provided the Tribunal with references to a number of Tribunal decisions where the Tribunal had found that Jehovah’s Witnesses returning to Lebanon had a well-founded fear of persecution in Lebanon ([Case number 1]; [Case number 2]) or that there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm ([case number deleted]).

2. None of these decisions are binding on the Tribunal as presently constituted. It is axiomatic that each application must be determined on its own facts and circumstances. However, each of these decisions referred to relevant country information which it is appropriate to reproduce in this decision for assessment of [the applicant’s] claims.

3. In application [Case number 1], the Tribunal noted:

   19.According to the United States Department of State, the Lebanese Constitution provides for “freedom of religion and the freedom to practice all religious rites, provided that the public order is not disturbed”.[11] There are 18 officially recognised religious groups in Lebanon, four of which are Muslim, twelve Christian, the Druze and Judaism.[12] Jehovah’s Witnesses is not an officially sanctioned religion in Lebanon.

   [11] US Department of State 2010, International Religious Freedom Report 2010 – Lebanon, 17 November, Section II.

   [12] US Department of State 2010, International Religious Freedom Report 2010 – Lebanon, 17 November, Section I

   20.Formal recognition by the government is a legal requirement for religious groups to conduct most religious activities. Unrecognised groups can be disadvantaged under the law in that their members may not qualify for certain government positions. Unrecognised groups may own property and assemble for worship without government interference; however, they are disadvantaged under the law as they may not legally marry, divorce or inherit property in Lebanon.[13] According to the US Department of State, each officially recognised religion has its own court system to adjudicate matters of personal status, including marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody according to each religion’s principles.[14] As they are not officially sanctioned, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no such court. As a result, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot get married in Lebanon, and must travel abroad to do so. As a non-recognised religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses are unable to officially register their houses of worship, and are therefore excluded from the property tax exemption enjoyed by churches and mosques. Instead, Kingdom Halls are registered as private properties owned by individuals.[15] Another issue encountered by Jehovah’s Witnesses relates to identity cards, which display an individual’s religion, but only those that are officially recognised. Jehovah’s Witnesses reportedly defer to their ancestral religious traditions on their papers.[16]  Although there are no legal barriers to proselytising, traditional attitudes discourage such activity.[17]

   [13] US Department of State 2010, International Religious Freedom Report 2010 – Lebanon, 17 November, Section II.

   [14] US Department of State 2010, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2009 – Lebanon, 11 March, Section 2.c.

   [15] Nash, M. 2008, ‘Faith comes knocking’, NOW Lebanon, 16 November

   [16] Nash, M. 2008, ‘Faith comes knocking’, NOW Lebanon, 16 November

   [17] US Department of State 2010, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2009 – Lebanon, 11 March, Section 2.c.

   . . .

   24.      An article in the Los Angeles Times of 17 April 2010 is as follows:

   Unlike other parts of the Arab world, Lebanon is known for its tolerance of multiple religious confessions. But even that has a limit, especially for faiths like Jehovah's Witnesses that are not registered or officially recognized by the government.

   It is estimated that there are over 15 "Kingdom Halls," or prayer gatherings, in Lebanon, which for now appear to be tolerated despite fears that participants could be harassed or deported. "My employer is Greek Orthodox, but she likes that I am a Witness," a young Philippine woman explained. "She knows that she can trust me. She lets me come to the meetings."

   Unlike in the West, however, she does not go door-to-door preaching. Proselytizing to Muslims is a punishable offense in most Arab countries. Though the Lebanese constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the government relies on a confessional system in which each state-sanctioned religious community holds an independent civil court to adjudicate personal status matters, namely marriage, divorce and child custody. 

   Jehovah's Witnesses say they feel like an oppressed and silenced minority. They say that the Maronite community in particular vilifies them. "They spread lies about us, claiming that we are Jews," said an Armenian convert. an article in NOW Lebanon, 2008, it was reported that a prominent Christian identity Father George Rahme regularly denounces Jehovah’s Witnesses on his weekly television programme, and reportedly encourages viewers to “keep a stick near their door to beat any Witnesses who visit.”[18]  It was noted that, by definition, Jehovah’s Witness members are required to proselytise as a key tenet of their faith, but reception to their proselytising in Lebanon is mixed, with one member claiming he has been beaten, assaulted and has had doors slammed in his face.[19] According to NOW Lebanon, abuse is not the standard reaction encountered by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many non- Jehovah’s Witness Christians in Lebanon, particularly Maronites, put signs on their doors warning Jehovah’s Witnesses against knocking.[20]

   . . .

   29.A. Holden[21] expands on this:

   Under Knorr's presidency, door-to-door evangelists no longer carried a portable gramophone and collection of Rutherford's records. Rather, devotees were given a thorough training in speech and non-verbal communication that enabled them to deliver their own sermons. To this day, the Witnesses hold regular meetings, during which training and demonstrations take place to enable them to minister more effectively to the general public. …

   There is, however, one remaining feature of the Watchtower movement that helps to explain its appeal, and this concerns the high level of commitment it expects from its devotees. Once received into the community as a fully baptised member, the individual is expected to contribute to the movement's worldwide success. In other words, conversion means evangelism. The austerity of the Watchtower regime ensures that commitment is sustained year on year, and that only those who demonstrate their millenarian convictions (by attending Kingdom Hall meetings and devoting as much time as they can to the doorstep ministry - details of which will be discussed in Chapter 4) are allowed to remain in membership. Not surprisingly, the Witnesses' renunciation of the world and their success in establishing a close-knit community appeal to those who have difficulty in embracing modern secular society and who feel very much at risk in an age of uncertainty. But it is the movement's propensity to screen out potential time-wasters that is particularly effective in generating and sustaining high levels of religious activity….

   The Witnesses see themselves as members not just of a religious movement but of one that monopolises the word of God. For this reason, they feel they are called upon to proselytise. Nonconformist ideas that were widespread during the period in which the Society was founded provided the basis for some of its teachings. The one imperative belief, however, is that the Bible, from beginning to end, is the inspired word of God. This means that all Watchtower teachings are scripturally supported and most, but not all, the Bible is interpreted literally. The exceptions are the recorded visions in the Books of Daniel and Revelation.

   [18] Nash, M. 2008, ‘Faith comes knocking’, NOW Lebanon, 16 November

   [19] Nash, M. 2008, ‘Faith comes knocking’, NOW Lebanon, 16 November

   [20] Nash, M. 2008, ‘Faith comes knocking’, NOW Lebanon, 16 November

   [21] Holden, A., 2002, Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement, Routledge, New York

4. In application [Case number 2], the Tribunal noted:

   33. The UN Human Rights Council 2015 ‘Lebanon, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt’, 21 August, states:

   … members of non-recognized communities, such as Baha’is or Jehovah’s Witnesses who, although feeling exposed to stereotyping and discrimination, at the same time voiced their clear appreciation that they can live in Lebanon in safety and in accordance with their religious convictions.

   … Adherents to non-recognized denominations, e.g. Baha’is and Jehovah’s Witnesses, whilst by and large enjoying freedom to confess and practise their beliefs, face problems when trying to build an infrastructure that would enable them to further solidify their community life. Some of these individuals remain officially registered under a recognized faiths, which they inherited but actually do not confess any longer – a situation that may create feelings of unease or self-betrayal.

   34. The EAJCW reported that [s]ome hostile people verbally or physically attack Jehovah's Witnesses, even threaten to accuse them before the police, knowing the negative decrees issued against them. Being banned, it is difficult for Jehovah's Witnesses to defend their religion and beliefs before the court.12

   35.The Minority Rights Group International report 2014, ‘The leaves of one tree: Religious minorities in Lebanon’, 10. December, states:

   In the course of MRG’s research, there were some reports suggesting that unrecognized religious minorities might be subjected to discrimination or hostility. Some religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, seem to attract more social and religious prejudice than others because of their beliefs and preaching methods. For instance, the group was reportedly denounced on a number of occasions by a priest on his weekly television programme. There have also been reports suggesting that members may be more vulnerable to harassment from security forces. Nevertheless, though some interviewees expressed their mistrust of law enforcement agents and their fear as unrecognized minorities of potential persecution in future, a significant number of respondents did not believe they were discriminated against and felt their relationship with the authorities was good. The sense of integration appeared to vary between different communities. Social recognition is clearly stronger for unrecognized communities that have been living with other religious communities for decades in areas outside of Beirut, where social linkages tend to be more developed.

   … If legal and administrative discrimination seems often to be referred to as a hurdle rather than a threat, social discrimination appears to be taking the greatest toll on people’s lives. Although no respondents mentioned specific attacks or incidents of physical violence against them, there were accounts of verbal abuse and acts of discrimination that at times created a sense of exclusion. One interviewee, a Jehovah’s Witness, expressed her feeling of always being an outsider: ‘ We, Jehovah’s Witnesses, are seen as the Anti-Christ.… [People think] that we do not believe in Jesus or Mary. I think of myself as a Christian and a Jehovah’s Witness, but people see me as an outsider to Christianity, a heretic. They think of my religion as a bad religion, mostly because we actively proselytise … but also because of all the prejudice around our beliefs and practices.’

   … The continued exclusion of a significant number of religious minorities, though currently manifesting in various forms of discrimination, could have more serious implications if the country witnessed another outbreak of sectarian violence. Should the recent rise of religious extremism lose its momentum, these minorities will still remain vulnerable until full recognition is achieved. While many respondents did not believe they faced serious discrimination at present, there was a definite sense that their situation could become worse in the future. During one interview, a member of an unrecognized religious group described the threat as common to all Lebanese, regardless of their religious identity. However, he added that ‘our small communities are of course the most vulnerable … because the threat is always greatest on the smallest’. Another interviewee described the state of fear by saying: ‘I presently wish to be invisible. The less we could be heard of, the better for our security.’ In response to the apparent rise of religious fundamentalism, many minority members now feel their social space shrinking and are concerned about their future in the region.

5. Other country information provided by [the applicant] included the report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Situation of Jehovah's Witnesses, including treatment by society and authorities; state protection available in cases of discrimination or mistreatment, dated 12 November 2013. That report relevantly states:

   1. Status and Rights of Jehovah's Witnesses

   Media sources indicate that, as far as the Lebanese government is concerned, Jehovah's Witnesses is neither a registered organization nor an officially recognized religion (Los Angeles Times 17 Apr. 2010; NOW Lebanon 16 Nov. 2008). In its submission to the UN Universal Period Review (UPR), the working group of the UN Human Rights Council indicated that Jehovah's Witnesses are considered by Lebanese religious authorities as "'outlawed'" (Dec. 2010). In 2010, the European Association of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses (EAJCW) stated in their submission to the UPR that on 27 January 1971, the Lebanese Council of Ministers banned Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon based on the "charge that 'Jehovah's Witnesses are inspired by International Zionism'" (EAJCW 26 Mar. 2010). The EAJCW added in the same 2010 report that the 1971 ban was still in force (ibid.).The ban does not allow Jehovah's Witnesses "to import religious literature, publicly share their beliefs, and have Christian meetings for worship in Kingdom Halls (places of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses)" (ibid.). The US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report indicates that in Lebanon, "[f]ormal recognition is a legal requirement for religious groups to conduct most religious activities" (2012, 3). However, sources indicate that unrecognized religions may operate and assemble (Cumorah n.d.c; NOW Lebanon 16 Nov. 2008). Similarly, the US International Religious Freedom Report says that unrecognized religious groups "are permitted to perform their religious rites freely" (2012, 4).

   The website of Cumorah, a "privately funded initiative that engages in research and education" with focus on Latter-day Saints Church growth worldwide (Cumorah n.d.a; ibid. n.d.b), reports that unrecognized religious groups may own property (n.d.c). However, NOW Lebanon, an independent and "non-sectarian" online news source that includes "members from all Lebanese political, ethnic, religious and socio-economic groups and persuasions" and which aims to promote democracy and liberalism in Lebanon (NOW Lebanon n.d.), indicates that non-recognized religious groups "cannot officially register their houses of worship," and that Kingdom Halls (places where Jehovah's Witnesses gather "to study the Bible and doctrinal literature") are registered as regular property owned by individuals rather than as houses of worship (NOW Lebanon 16 Nov. 2008). NOW Lebanon also indicates that unlike churches and mosques, unrecognized religious groups are not entitled to property tax exemptions (ibid).

   . . .

   In 2008, NOW Lebanon reported that Lebanon prohibits the distribution of tracts on the street, and, according to a Jehovah's Witness interviewed by the news source, Jehovah's Witnesses "are prohibited from handing someone religious materials the first time they visit a house. If the people in that house invite them back or request some printed material, the Witnesses can distribute it" (16 Nov. 2008). According to NOW Lebanon, the "reception of [Jehovah's Witnesses'] proselytizing in Lebanon ... is mixed" (16 Nov. 2008). The US International Religious Freedom Report indicates that "[t]here are no procedures for civil marriage; however, the government recognizes civil marriage ceremonies performed outside the country, irrespective of the religious affiliation of each individual" (2012, 3). NOW Lebanon explains that recognized religions have their own courts that deal with family matters, including marriage and divorce; the source said that due to the absence of civil laws on marriage, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot get married in Lebanon and have to travel abroad to do so (16 Nov. 2008).

1. [The applicant] made it clear at the hearing that proselytising is a core and central part of his faith. This is consistent with information available at the Jehovah's Witnesses official website,[22] which states that Jehovah’s Witnesses are commanded by the Bible to proselytise to the unconverted:

   Christians are commanded to "make disciples of people of all the nations," but this does not mean that they are to use pressure or convert others by force. Jesus' commission was to "tell good news to the meek ones," to "bind up the brokenhearted," to "comfort all the mourning ones." (Matthew 28:19; Isaiah 61:1, 2; Luke 4:18, 19) Jehovah's Witnesses seek to do this by declaring the good news from the Bible. Like the prophet Ezekiel of old, Jehovah's Witnesses today try to find those who "are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things that are being done."-Ezekiel 9:4.

   The best-known way they use to find those who are distressed by present conditions is by going from house to house. Thus they make a positive effort to reach the public, just as Jesus did when "he went journeying from city to city and from village to village, preaching and declaring the good news of the kingdom of God." His early disciples did likewise. (Luke 8:1; 9:1-6; 10:1-9) Today, where it is possible, Jehovah's Witnesses endeavour to call at each home several times a year, seeking to converse with the householder for a few minutes on some local or world topic of interest or concern. A scripture or two may be offered for consideration, and if the householder shows interest, the Witness may arrange to call back at a convenient time for further discussion. Bibles and literature explaining the Bible are made available, and if the householder desires, a home Bible study is conducted free of charge. Millions of these helpful Bible studies are conducted regularly with individuals and families throughout the world.

   Another way in which "the good news of the kingdom" is told to others is through meetings held at local Kingdom Halls. The Witnesses conduct meetings there weekly. One meeting is a public lecture on a subject of current interest, followed by a study of some Biblical theme or prophecy, using the Watchtower magazine as source material. Another meeting is a school for training Witnesses to be better proclaimers of the good news, followed by a part devoted to discussing the witnessing work in the local territory. Also, once a week Witnesses assemble in private homes, in small groups, for Bible studies.

   [22] 'Ways They Use to Share the Good News' 2000, Watchtower website, >

   [The applicant] gave consistent evidence both to the Tribunal and the delegate of the importance of proselytising. The Tribunal accepts that [the applicant] is actively involved with proselytising here in Australia and would wish to continue this if he were to return to Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that any decision not to be involved in proselytising in Lebanon would be due to a fear of harm. The Tribunal accepts that the country information referred to above suggests that Jehovah’s Witnesses who actively proselytise are in a vulnerable position and may be threatened, verbally abused and physically harassed or assaulted. Further, the Tribunal also accepts and finds that the only way that [the applicant] would be able to avoid the potential for harm would be to not proselytise or to practice his religion extremely discretely. This would lace an unacceptable limit on [the applicant], forcing him to hide or to modify a key attribute or characteristic of his religion: Applicant S395/2002 v MIMIA [2003] HCA 71.

2. The Tribunal has considered whether or not State protection would be available to [the applicant], but has concluded that it would not be. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not officially recognised in Lebanon, their meetings are technically unlawful, and independent evidence suggests that there is an attitude of disapproval and hostility to the practice of the religion. The Tribunal accepts that State authorities would not be likely to provide protection to Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially those proselytising.

3. The Tribunal finds that the necessity to abstain from the practice in his religion to avoid actual or threatened punishment indicates [the applicant] has a well-founded fear of harm in Lebanon for the Convention reason of religion. The Tribunal finds that the [the applicant’s] Jehovah's Witness faith to be the essential and significant reason for the harm he fears and that that harm involves systematic and discriminatory conduct as it would involve selective and intentional actions.

4. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that [the applicant] is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore [the applicant] satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal is also satisfied that each of [the remaining applicants] are members of the same family unit as the [applicant] for the purposes of s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Act. As such, the fate of their application depends on the outcome of the [the applicant’s] application. It follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s.36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

   (a)that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

   (b)that the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

R. C. Titterton
Member