1504978 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4693

1504978 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4693 (9 November 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1504978

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:9 November 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 09 November 2016 at 5:02pm

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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

   Background

2. The applicant is a [age] Sunni Muslim and a citizen of Lebanon. He arrived in Australia in December 2011 on a [temporary] visa. [In] May 2014, his [temporary] visa was cancelled. He applied to the then Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) for a review of the Department’s cancellation decision. On 5 September 2014, the MRT affirmed the decision under review and, [in] October 2014, the applicant applied for a protection visa.

   Protection Visa Application

3. In a statement submitted in support of his application for a protection visa, the applicant made the following claims.

4. He arrived in Australia on a [temporary] visa and was dedicated to his studies. However, due to ‘countless problems’ he lost his focus and his [temporary] visa was cancelled.

5. Before coming to Australia, he lived in [Town 1] with his family. He is [very] close to his father. His father is the ‘[public official]’ in the [Town 1] Municipality. He has held the position since 2009. This is an important position and people in the community rely on his father. His father has many supporters and also enemies. His father is a supporter of the pro-Syrian March 8 Coalition, whilst the majority of [Town 1]’s population are loyal to the anti-Syrian March 14 Coalition.

6. Whilst the applicant did not side with any group and he was not an active member of any party, he was perceived to share his father’s views. He and his family were verbally abused and were labelled as traitors.

7. At the time of ‘heightened conflict’ between the two groups, he had plans to travel in order to further his studies and ‘save’ himself from being involved in the violence. He was ‘confronted with too many close calls in [Town 1] and wanted a fresh start’.

8. In 2010, he was going home late at night when a fight broke out between the supporters of Asem Abdel Aziz from the March 14 Coalition and supporters of Jihad Al Samad from the March 8 Coalition. He ‘barely made it home’.

9. In 2012, a group of armed people went to his father’s house and threatened to harm his father ‘through’ the applicant or by harming the applicant. This incident happened at the peak of the Syrian civil war and Hezbollah was fighting with the Syrian regime. His father’s support for the March 8 Coalition ‘did not sit well with the community’ and they reacted with violence. After this incident, his father received ‘countless anonymous threatening calls’ and the callers ‘threatened to torture and kill’ the applicant. The involvement of various religious leaders on behalf of his father only temporarily halted this behaviour. The opposing parties knew him well because he ran errands for his father. These ‘rogue’ groups have developed an ‘ongoing vendetta’ against him and ‘they will not rest until they destroy [him] to sway [his] father’.

10. The situation in Lebanon has continued to deteriorate and recently his mother’s relative, [Mr A], a supporter of [name] from the March 8 Coalition was shot dead by the ‘opposing party’. He knew the victim and the incident made him worried about his safety. He does not associate himself with any political group and maintains a ‘neutral stance’.

11. The applicant was interviewed by a delegate of the Minister [in] February 2015. Where relevant, the applicant’s evidence to the delegate is referred to below.

12. The delegate refused to grant the visa [in] March 2015. The delegate was not satisfied as to the credibility of the applicant and the veracity of his claims. The delegate based this finding on the applicant’s tardiness in raising significant claims, the applicant’s unconvincing account of past experiences at the interview and the applicant’s significant delay in lodging his protection visa application.

    Application for Review 

13. The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. He was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

14. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review and the applicant is taken to be on notice of the delegate’s findings and reasons.

15. [In] October 2016, the applicant’s representative provided a submission to the Tribunal in relation to the facts and the applicable law. In her submission, she addressed the credibility issues raised by the delegate in his decision and provided further clarifications in relation to other aspects of the applicant’s claims, including his father’s political position and why the applicant would be at risk of harm despite not being ‘a serious political activist’.

16. Under the cover of the submission, the applicant’s representative submitted the following supporting material:

    ·Copy of a blog entry, titled Grief Affects Behaviors, Feelings, Thoughts (Including Memory), & Body, sourced from fruitfulwords.wordpress.com, relating to the impact of grief on a person. It is unclear who the author of the article is and when it was published. The printout of the article submitted to the Tribunal includes 15 comments by, presumably, readers in relation to their own experiences of grief.

    ·Copy of an article, titled Good Grief: How Mourning Can Affect Your Memory by Tara Adams, dated 29 April 2016, sourced from a blog associated with a commercial health supplements company, of an article, titled How Trauma Affects Your Memory, dated 13 January 2010, authored by the ‘staff’ of Casa Palmera, a ‘residential behavioral health treatment facility’ in the US.

    ·Copy of an article titled Memory Loss During Greif, dated January 2011, by Shirley Wiles-Dickinson, whose sister was murdered in the US in 2009.

    ·Copy of an undated DFAT ‘Lebanon country brief’.

    ·Copy of DFAT’s August 2016 travel advice in relation to lebanon

    ·Copy of an Arab Weekly article, titled The tactic of political assassinations in Lebanon, dated 12 February 2016, by Dalal Saoud.

    ·Copy of US State Department’s 2014 Investment Climate Statement in relation to Lebanon.

    ·Copy of US State Department’s 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights in relation to Lebanon.

    ·Copy of US State Department’s 2014 report in relation to Lebanon’s Security Challenges and US Interests.

17. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 November 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal is referred to below.

18. [In] November 2016, the applicant submitted a copy of a one page document containing printed Arabic and English text. The document is titled [name]]’ and ‘Sworn Translator’ appear on the wet stamp at the bottom of the document. The following is printed at the top left hand corner of the document:

    Lebanese Republic
    Province of North Lebanon
    Decisions of Ministry of Justice
    Number [number] dated [date]/12/2001
    Number [number] dated [date]/10/2010

19. The following English text is printed in a box in the middle of the document:

    Name: [applicant’s name]
    Place of birth:[Town 1] / [District 1]
    Date of birth [date]
    No: [number]
    Free Patriotic Movement

20. The applicant also submitted a translation of a news article sourced from [a] Newspaper, dated [in] April 2014. The original Arabic report was not provided. The translation states:

    A person was killed and [number] others were injured during a fight at [District 1] (Photo attached).

    The Press information in North Lebanon state that [Mr A] was killed and [number] other persons from [Mr A]’s family were injured during a personal fight in [Town 1]/ [District 1]. The killed and injured persons were carried to [a] hospital.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

21. 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.

22. 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).

23. 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.

24. 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’).

25. 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal has had regard to the DFAT Country Report Lebanon (published on 25 February 2014); the DFAT Thematic Report-Sectarian Violence in Lebanon (published on 18 December 2013); and DFAT Country Report Lebanon (published on 18 December 2015).

    Analysis, Findings and Reasons

26. The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible and truthful witness and has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has had regard to various inconsistencies in his evidence, the unpersuasive nature of some key aspects of his claims and other reasons detailed below. 

27. First, the applicant provided an inconsistent account of his political affiliations, activities and profile in Lebanon. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that his involvement in politics was not of his own ‘free will ‘ and that it was because of his father’s position that people assumed he shared his father’s views. He had run errands for his father and people were watching. The applicant expressly stated that he ‘was not sided with anyone’ (sic), he was not ‘an active member of any party’ and that he just wanted a peaceful ‘political free life’. He does not associate himself with any political group and maintains a ‘neutral stance’. At the departmental interview, however, the applicant claimed for the first time that in Lebanon he distributed pamphlets and sometimes attended political meetings every three or four months. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant introduced new evidence, claiming that he was a member of Tayyar Watani Horr (the Free Patriotic Movement). He stated that he joined the party in 2008 and he was issued with a membership card. He participated in ‘community service’ activities on behalf of the party and ultimately ceased being a member in 2010. He further claimed that he acted as a [occupation] for his father and had assaulted a number of people as a result.

28. The new information provided by the applicant at the Departmental interview, as well as his failure to disclose evidence relating to his claimed membership of the Free Patriotic Movement, was put to the applicant under s.424AA. He responded that when he first applied for a protection visa, he was fearful of saying everything and when he found out that there was a risk to his life he had to disclose certain things. This reason does not satisfactorily explain why the applicant would have been fearful of disclosing to the Department the claim that he was a member of the Free Patriotic Movement. The applicant was represented throughout the process and he did not clarify why he had opted to disclose his membership of the Free Patriotic Movement at the Tribunal hearing. Nor does the Tribunal accept as satisfactory the applicant’s explanation that he did not mention his work as a [occupation] because he did not want to be seen as a bad person. The Tribunal considers these explanations improvised and unpersuasive.

29. The applicant stated at the hearing that he would be able to provide the Tribunal with his Free Patriotic Movement membership card. Following the hearing, he submitted what appeared to be a translation of the purported card. The applicant, however, did not submit a copy of the original document. The translation refers to the applicant’s name, place of birth and date of birth. It also includes a number (‘No: [number]’) and the name of the party (Free Patriotic Movement). The document contains no other information in relation to when and where the applicant had joined the party, when and where the card was issued and whether his membership is still valid. Neither the applicant nor his representative provided any further information or clarifications in relation to the translation. The document submitted by the applicant does not remedy the Tribunal's concerns regarding the problematic nature of the applicant’s claimed political affiliations and activities. For these reasons, and in view of the fundamental lack of credibility within the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal does not give any weight to this document.  

30. The Tribunal is of the view that the significant shifts in the applicant’s evidence and his preparedness to introduce new claims at different stages cast serious doubt on his credibility and the reliability of his evidence in relation to his political affiliations, associations, links and activities, including the activities he claims to have carried out for, or on behalf of, his father.

31. Secondly, the applicant provided inconsistent accounts of his experiences of harm in Lebanon throughout the process. In the statement submitted in support of his application for a protection visa, the applicant claimed that, in 2010, he was going home at night when a fight broke out between two opposing group and he barely made it home. He did not claim to have been directly involved in, or harmed as consequence of, this incident. Whist the applicant referred in passing to being ‘confronted with too many close calls’, he did not claim to have suffered any other harm.

32. At the Departmental interview, the applicant raised two new claims. He claimed for the first time that, in 2008, he was distributing pamphlets in support of his father, who was running for the municipal elections, when some people with knives tried to attack him. He stated that he was not injured because some people had intervened. He further claimed that, in early 2011, he was sitting by the road side in [Town 1] with a few others when anti-Syrian demonstrators gathered nearby. Some of the demonstrators were aware of his family’s political affiliations.  A scuffle or a skirmish broke out and the applicant was hit on his back with a club. The problem was resolved after the army intervened. The applicant also claimed for the first time that it was this incident that ultimately resulted in the shooting death of his friend, [Mr A]. None of these claims were referred to in the written statement provided in support of his application for a protection visa.

33. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided a completely different account of his experiences in Lebanon. He told the Tribunal that, in 2010, he was distributing leaflets when he was attacked with knives. He was punched in the eye and sustained minor injuries to his hand. When asked if anything else had happened to him in Lebanon, he said no.

34. The applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate was put to him under s.424AA. The Tribunal explained to the applicant the relevance of this information by reference to the various inconsistencies in his evidence throughout the process and the conclusions the Tribunal may draw. When asked if he wished to comment on or respond to the information, he stated that he will ‘leave it to God’.

35. In her pre hearing submission, the applicant’s representative essentially argued that the applicant’s belated claims of harm at the interview were far less serious than the ‘defining events’ he had referred to in his written statement to the Department and, therefore, he had not mentioned them in his statement. The Tribunal does not agree with this assessment. Even if the Tribunal were to accept this explanation, which it does not, no satisfactory explanation has been offered for the applicant’s problematic evidence at the Tribunal hearing, which significantly differ from the accounts he had put forward in writing and orally to the Department. The Tribunal is unable to reconcile the various inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant's account of his experiences in Lebanon is inconsistent, unreliable, improvised and unpersuasive. The Tribunal is also of the view that the applicant has manufactured these claims to strengthen his case and achieve an immigration outcome. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept any of the applicant’s claims regarding his experiences of harm in Lebanon.

36. Thirdly, the applicant provided inconsistent and unpersuasive evidence in relation the claimed attack on his father in 2012. The applicant claimed in his written statement to the Department that, in 2012, an armed group ‘went to my father’s home’ and threated his father by stating that they will harm the applicant. In his oral evidence to the Department, however, the applicant provided a somewhat different account. He stated that his father had dedicated a [reservoir] to [a country leader]’s son, [name]. A person from [a certain] family came and washed his feet in the [reservoir]. An argument erupted and this person went to get other family members. [Number of] people came to the house and his [relative] had to intervene by firing shots. In his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant offered yet another version, claiming that his father was offering free water from a [reservoir] in honour of [a country leader]’s son. When some people came to remove a memorial plaque from the site, an argument erupted and someone tried to run over his father. Then [number] armed people arrived before his [relative] intervened.

1. The applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate was put to him under s.424AA of the Act. The Tribunal also explained the inconsistencies in his evidence regarding this claim. The applicant stated that he is talking about the same problems but he is now providing further details. The Tribunal, however, is unable to reconcile the various inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence and the applicant’s comments do not offer any satisfactory explanations.

2. Moreover, as it was put to the applicant at the hearing, according to his evidence, it was his father who had held a position in [a] local [public body]] and was politically active in support of March 8 Coalition. It was also his father who was involved in the argument over the [reservoir] as he has claimed. The Tribunal considers it highly unlikely that, other than directing threats against the applicant, his father’s enemies had never harmed his father or had made threats against other members of his family, including the applicant’s [sibling], who continues to reside at the family home. The Tribunal considers it unpersuasive that, despite the claimed prolonged tensions between his father, and those who were opposed to him, the only way that that thought they could harm the applicant’s father was by harming the applicant, who was in Australia at the time. When this was put to him at the hearing, he stated that there are problems every few months and this is how people live in Lebanon. He further stated that his family are protected otherwise his father would have been killed like his friend. The Tribunal does not find this explanation to satisfactorily address the Tribunal's concern. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept the applicant’s claim relating to the 2012 incident. The Tribunal does not accept that his father was attacked and that threats were made against his father to the effect that the applicant would be harmed. The Tribunal does not accept that any individual or group has an ‘ongoing vendetta’ against the applicant and that ‘they will not rest until they destroy [him] to sway [his] father’.

3. Fourthly, as noted above, the applicant’s the applicant’s [temporary] visa was cancelled in May 2014. The applicant applied to the then MRT for a review of the Department’s cancellation decision. According to the MRT’s decision record, in his oral evidence the applicant stated that he had completed minimal study in Australia because his father was ill, he lost his finances and he had trouble adjusting to the study environment. The applicant did not refer to any other problems in Lebanon. More importantly, in a submission prepared by his representative in support of that review application, it was stated that the applicant faced no problems in Lebanon that would compel him to remain in Australia and that he is genuinely here on a temporary basis. This evidence is inconsistent with the applicant’s claims to the Department that he wanted to travel to save himself from being involved in violence. In her pre hearing submission, the applicant's representative also contended that the applicant’s arrival in Australia was ‘due to being a refugee’ and his immediate ‘need to flee Lebanon’ was the reason he initially sought a [temporary] visa.

4. The applicant’s evidence to the MRT was put to him under s.424AA of the Act. He responded that when his father was attacked and his friend was killed he was in Australia. His father was stressed because of problems in Lebanon and he (the applicant) felt that he should not speak about his private life before the MRT. The Tribunal finds this explanation unpersuasive. The Tribunal considers it reasonable to expect the applicant to have made at least tentative references to his or his father’s problems if there was any truth to his protection claims. His failure to do so, as well as his explicit acknowledgment to the MRT that he faced no problems in Lebanon that would compel him to remain in Australia, render his claims for protection unreliable and lacking in credibility.

5. Finally, as it was put to the applicant at the hearing, if he had been personally attacked and threatened in Lebanon and if threats of harm were made against him in 2012, it would be reasonable to expect him not to have delayed making an application for a protection visa until October 2014. He responded that the problems he had initially faced were ordinary problems and he became scared when his friend was killed. At the interview, the applicant explained his delay in seeking protection by stating that he was studying and he wanted to finish his studies, find a job and stay. Similarly, in her pre-hearing submission, the applicant’s representative argued that the applicant was on a [temporary] visa for over two years before applying for a protection visa. As he was on a [temporary] visa, he was safe and there was no need for him to apply for a protection visa. It was submitted that he was holding ‘onto a sense of dignity and [did] not wish to be ashamed for being a victim’. It was further submitted that, due to his ‘grief and trauma’, he was unable to think clearly and he did not want to admit to himself and others that he is a ‘refugee’. It was submitted that, when the applicant stopped studying in 2012 due to his psychological state, he was uncertain how to proceed.

6. The Tribunal does not find any of the explanations put forward satisfactory. According to his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant stopped studying in the middle of 2013 and his [temporary] visa was cancelled in May 2014. The Tribunal has considered the generic articles and blog entries relating to grief and memory submitted by the applicant’s representative. However, no medical or psychological evidence has been provided to suggest that he was suffering from trauma, grief or any other form of psychological illness at any point. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was unable to think due to grief and trauma; that he had felt safe while on a [temporary] visa or that he had associated applying for a protection visa with feelings of shame as reasons for his failure to lodge a protection visa application at an earlier stage. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s significant delay in lodging his application for a protection visa casts serious doubt on the credibility of his claims and the genuineness of his claimed fear of persecution.

7. For all the above reasons the Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible and truthful witness. The totality of his evidence shows a propensity to fabricate claims and tailor his evidence in a manner that achieves his own purpose.

8. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept that the applicant was a member or supporter of the Free Patriotic Movement. The Tribunal does not accept that he attended political meetings or distributed pamphlets with, for or behalf of his father. The Tribunal does not accept that he was involved in any political activity, any other activity that may be characterised as political. The Tribunal does not accept that he acted as his father’s [occupation] or that he assaulted or was assaulted by anyone. The Tribunal does not accept his claims in relation to his father. The Tribunal does not accept that his father was a supporter of the March 8 Coalition or that he was a member of any party associated with the Coalition. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father was politically active, that he had a political profile or that he had political enemies. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and his father were imputed with pro-Shia or pro-Syria views by any anyone. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was attacked, assaulted, threatened or harmed in any other way by anyone in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and members of his family were verbally abused or labelled as traitors. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s father was threatened ‘through’ the applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that his father had received anonymous threatening calls threatening to harm the applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that anyone in Lebanon has threatened to harm the applicant as a way of harming his father.

9. The applicant has claimed that his friend, [Mr A], was killed in 2014. At the interview, the applicant stated that his friend was killed because they both had taken part in a skirmish with anti-Syrian protesters in [Town 1] in 2011. As noted above, at the hearing the applicant gave a different account of his experiences in Lebanon. Whilst the applicant failed to make any references to the 2011 incident, he stated that his friend was killed because, in 2010, when the applicant was attacked, [Mr A] was with the applicant and armed. When the Tribunal asked why [Mr A] was killed some four years after the 2010 incident, he said the 2010 incident was only one of the reasons why his friend was targeted.  When the information he had provided to the delegate was put to him under s.424AA, the applicant did not offer a meaningful response.

10. Moreover, in support of his application for a protection visa, the applicant had submitted a newspaper article dated [in] October 2009, sourced from [website]. The article, titled ‘[title deleted]’ (sic), stated that shots fired by unknown assailants had killed [name] and injured a student, [name]. At the hearing the applicant confirmed that the article was in relation to his friend. When the date of the article and the facts alleged therein was put to him, he stated that this was the wrong article and that he would be able to submit evidence in support of his claims.

11. Following the hearing, the applicant submitted a translation of another news article in support of his claims regarding [Mr A]. However, the article, which is dated [in] April 2014, states that [Mr A] was killed and [number] other persons from [Mr A’s] family were injured during ‘a personal fight’. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the victims were targeted for reasons related to their political views or the reasons offered by the applicant.

12. Whilst the Tribunal is prepared to accept that a relative of the applicant by the name of [Mr A] was killed in April 2014, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the incident had occurred for the reasons provided by the applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that the death of the applicant’s friend in 2014, which was as a consequence of a personal fight, means that the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in Lebanon.

13. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will be subjected to serious harm for the reason of his political opinion, religion, membership of the particular social group of his family or any other social group apparent on the face of the evidence, or any other Convention reason. The Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that the applicant will face significant harm in Lebanon arising from his religion, his imputed political opinion, his familial links, area of residence or other circumstances.

14. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicant is concerned about general violence, political conflict and tension in Lebanon. However, there is no persuasive evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the tensions, lack of general security and any instability the applicant may be concerned about is faced by him personally. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the general security situation in Lebanon would expose the applicant to a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.

15. Under s.36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tensions, lack of general security and the instability the applicant fears are faced by the population generally and not by him personally. The Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm in Lebanon as a result of lack of general security and instability.

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that he will be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a)-(e) of the definition of torture in s.5(1). The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering or pain or suffering, either physical or mental, such as to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment in s.5(1). Nor is it satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that he will suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in s.5(1) which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty.

17. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

18. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

19. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

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

    Shahyar Roushan
    Senior Member