1504418 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse the applicant a Protection visa. The applicant, claiming to be a citizen of Lebanon, arrived in Australia in June 2010 and applied for a permanent visa in November 2010, which was refused. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Migration Review Tribunal due to a time-bar, the applicant applied for a Protection visa in July 2014. The delegate refused this application in March 2015, finding the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Lebanon. The applicant sought review of this decision.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugee Convention, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant would suffer significant harm, thereby meeting the complementary protection criterion. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of persecution or harm based on her religion (Sunni Muslim), her status as a divorced woman, and her membership in a particular social group, in light of the country information regarding Lebanon.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the Protection visa. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be inconsistent and implausible, suggesting they were contrived to achieve a migration outcome. While the applicant initially claimed persecution due to sectarian violence in Tripoli and later asserted harm as a divorced woman, her evidence and testimony lacked credibility. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims regarding her marital status and family support in Lebanon shifted during the process. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's later submission of documents, including statutory declarations and birth certificates related to a de facto relationship and child, but concluded that these did not satisfy the criteria for a Protection visa, particularly as they did not establish a family unit with a person already holding a protection visa.