1504203 (Refugee)

This decision concerns an application for a protection visa by an individual who identifies as a Jehovah's Witness, and by extension, his family members. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's fear of harm in Lebanon due to his religious practice, specifically his commitment to proselytising, which is a central tenet of his faith. The matter came before the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of harm for a Convention reason, specifically religion, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards him. This involved determining if the applicant's religious practice of proselytising would expose him to harm in Lebanon, whether abstaining from this practice would impose an unacceptable limit on his religious freedom, and if state protection would be available to him in Lebanon. The Tribunal also had to consider if the other applicants, as members of the same family unit, met the criteria for a protection visa based on the outcome of the primary applicant's case.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that proselytising is a core and central part of his faith, consistent with the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses. It found that the applicant would wish to continue this practice if he returned to Lebanon and that any decision not to do so would be motivated by a fear of harm. The Tribunal accepted country information suggesting that Jehovah's Witnesses who proselytise are vulnerable to threats, abuse, and physical harm. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the only way for the applicant to avoid potential harm would be to cease proselytising or practice his religion discreetly, which would place an unacceptable limit on a key attribute of his faith. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that state protection would not be available to Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon, as they are not officially recognised, their meetings are technically unlawful, and there is a general attitude of hostility towards their practice.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had a well-founded fear of harm for the Convention reason of religion, and that this harm involved systematic and discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal was satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant and that his family members also met the relevant criteria. The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, and the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Act on the basis of their family unit membership.