1505482 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 674

1505482 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 674 (29 March 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1505482

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:29 March 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 29 March 2017 at 8:26am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Lebanon – Political – Provided assistance to Syrian refugees – Member of political organisation – Future Movement – Credibility – Inconsistent evidence - Fabricated claims - Tailor evidence to achieve own purpose

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), (c), 36(2B)(c), 65,

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003)
77 ALJR 1165

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, Claims and Evidence

   Protection Visa Application

2. The applicant is [age] and a citizen of Lebanon. He is a Sunni Muslim from [town], North Lebanon. He arrived in Australia [in] November 2013 on a [temporary] visa. He applied for a protection visa [in] December 2013.

3. In a statement attached to his application for a protection visa, the applicant made the following claims:

   In approximately 2011, I decided to help Syrian refugees who had fled from Syria to Lebanon, and who were suffering from problems such as homelessness and poverty. They had no food or clothing or medication. These refugees were in the area of [district], quite close to where I was staying.

   I assisted Syrian refugees through an organisation I belonged to called the [Organisation 1]. This was a social and cultural organisation, and also had a political arm. This movement supported the former president of Lebanon, Rafiq Al Harari, who was assassinated in 2005. I believe that Hezbollah was responsible for his murder. Since his death, I have been followed and harassed by Hezbollah and their supporters. I was forced to give up my previous employment, and lived mostly in hiding.

   Hezbollah, a broad political group that supported and continues to support the current Syrian regime of Bashar Al Assad, consider that people such as myself who try to help Syrian refugees, do so because we are supporters of the Syrian rebel groups fighting the Syrian Government regime of Bashar Al Assad. They consider the rebels to be terrorists, and fight and kill them. I have never supported any political group in Syria, but in spite of this I was targeted by Hezbollah. Hezbollah is very powerful in Lebanon, and when they became aware that I was helping refugees, they increased their targeting of me and others doing similar work.

   I had received threats and harassment from Hezbollah and their agents for about 8 years, but in about August or September 2013, I became aware that Hezbollah were seriously planning to kill me because of my support for Syrian refugees. My mother received a letter threatening me with kidnap and death, and I then decided I had to leave Lebanon. My [sibling] lives in Australia, and I was able to obtain a [temporary] visa to leave the country to visit [sibling]. I had been working as part of a team of [number] men in the [Organisation 1], helping the Syrian refugees. In October 2013, [number] of these men were killed by Hezbollah, the Arab Party and the Syrian National Party. This made me even more frightened for my life.

   In 2008, I was first targeted, and injured by Hezbollah during a demonstration against the Syrian regime, which my friends and I were watching from our office. We were about to distribute goods to the Syrian refugees who needed them. (There were many Syrian refugees in Lebanon at this time). We were then attacked by Syrian Nationalists members of Hezbollah. My [part of hand] was badly cut, and I was about to lose it, but I was rescued by a friend. I also suffered a blow to my head, which required [number] stitches, and was hit with a baton on my legs. I went into hiding to escape from Hezbollah. My father and [sibling], who are both [occupation], were detained twice, and asked where I was hiding. On one occasion, they were detained for [number] days before being released.

   I spent most of my time hiding in [suburb], in Tripoli, Northern Lebanon, where Hezbollah was not as powerful as in other parts of the country. I returned to my home whenever I could, but always in secret.

   In the last few years I have changed my telephone number on several occasions, but Hezbollah always found my new number. They have called me to threaten me with death because of my work with Syrian refugees, and accuse me of supporting the Syrian rebel groups who they label terrorist.

   I could not remain in [suburb], or Tripoli, in safety, because there is a lot of fighting between the Alawite and Sunnis. Whenever there is a fight, many people die. On the most recent occasion, 10 died and 140 were injured. The Lebanese forces are unable to stop the fighting. Sunni like me generally support the Lebanese refugees. This is another reason why I am frightened to stay in Lebanon.

   I fear that if I return to Lebanon, I will certainly be killed. I know that Hezbollah make threats which they carry out, especially since they killed [number] of my colleagues. The fourth person on the list is still in Lebanon. He is alive but I heard he was shot in the leg. I do not know what happened to him. I have received repeated threats against my life, only because I have helped distribute aid to Syrian refugees, but Hezbollah assumes that I do this because I am against the Assad Government in Syria.

   …

   The Lebanese Government cannot protect me against Hezbollah supporters. They are extremely powerful, and are much stronger than the Government forces. They were responsible for the death of the former Lebanese president, and have killed many Lebanese civilians. I have been told that I will also be killed, and I am sure this is what will happen to me if I return to Lebanon.

   For this reason I am requesting the Australian Government to grant me a protection visa, so that I may live in safety in Australia.

4. In support of his application for a protection visa, the applicant submitted the following documents:

   ·Copies and translations of his individual and family registrations.

   ·Copy of a membership card for the [agency] in Tripoli.

   ·Copy of a membership card for the [Organisation 1].

   ·Copy of translation of an undated letter by the [agency] of North Lebanon, addressed to ‘whom it may concern’, stating that the applicant has been working in Tripoli ‘for many years’ and like other Lebanese youth he is ‘suffering from the very bad security condition and deterioration in the country, especially in the city of Tripoli’. The letter states that the applicant ‘is known as partisan to a political party and practicing some social and sportive and cultural activities...he becomes aimed by and an object to the contrary parties. He is fearing from moving around and fearing to be treated with injustice leading to kidnap or murder’ (sic).

   ·Copies of translations of a Certificate of Attendance, Certificate of Merit and Certificate of participation issued by the [Organisation 1] between December 2007 and March 2008.

   ·Copy of a translation of an undated letter by [name], [official] of [town], stating that the applicant is owner of a business, [name], in [town]. He stated ‘since a short while a sectarian group related to the Syrian system attacked his establishment many times and threatened him’ (sic). This resulted in the applicant closing his business and leaving Lebanon.

   The Interview

5. The applicant was interviewed by a delegate of the Minister [in] February 2015. Where relevant, his oral evidence at the interview is referred to below.

   The Delegate’s Decision

6. A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa [in] April 2015. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a credible witness and did not accept the applicant’s claims as genuine.

   The Review Application

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

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 December 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. The applicant’s representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

9. Following the hearing, the Tribunal received a detailed submission from the applicant’s representative, dated [in] January 2017. He provided a summary of law, referring to the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’, the Department’s Procedural Advice Manual (PAM3) relating to assessment of credibility and the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status. The submission also responded to the Tribunal's concerns, raised with the applicant at the hearing, regarding the inconsistencies in his evidence.  

10. Attached to the submission was a report in relation to the applicant by [name], Counsellor, [Agency 1], dated [on] January 2017. [Name] stated that his report ‘highlights [the applicant’s] psychological functioning at the time of his initial DIBP interview, and the progress of his mental health to date’. It was stated that the applicant was initially referred to [Agency 1] in April 2014 and the initial assessment occurred [in] June 2014. The applicant had attended a total of [number] assessment and counselling sessions.

11. The report stated that the applicant remained highly fearful of strangers for more than a year after arriving in Australia, which resulted in social isolation and dependence on others to help him access services. His material circumstances also contributed to ‘social isolation, poor self-esteem and greater anxiety’. He was also experiencing ‘intense and frequent intrusive memories and nightmares’. It was stated that the applicant’s ability ‘to express his feelings and consistently recall information’ was largely dependent on his mental state at the time; and that ‘during the 2014 to early-mid 2015 period, his ability to concentrate and provide a consistent narrative of past experiences was poorer than the latter period to date’.

12. It was stated that, over the past year, the applicant’s descriptions of previous experiences ‘have improved significantly in coherence and consistency, coinciding with improvement in his overall psychological functioning…His disclosures and general discourse is less fragmented and significantly more coherent’. It was stated that the applicant ‘continues to experience traumatic stress symptoms [including] intrusive memories and nightmares relating to past experiences. His general anxiety remains and he is affected by news from Lebanon and images of the Syrian war.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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.

16. 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’).

17. 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 following DFAT reports: Country Report Lebanon (published on 25 February 2014); Thematic Report - Sectarian Violence in Lebanon (published on 18 December 2013); and Country Report Lebanon (published on 18 December 2015).

    Analysis, Reasons and Findings

18. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

19. First, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his political affiliations.

20. In the statement provided in support of his protection visa, the applicant stated that he assisted Syrian refugees through the [Organisation 1], which was a social and cultural organisation. The organisation also had a political arm and the movement supported the former Prime Minister, Rafiq Al Harari. The applicant also stated that he never supported any political group in Syria. The applicant did not claim to have been a member of the Future Movement or any other political party or group in Lebanon.

21. At his interview with the delegate, whilst the applicant stated that the [Organisation 1] fell under the umbrella of the Future Movement in Lebanon, he did not claim that he was ever a member of the Future Movement. At the Tribunal hearing, however, the applicant claimed that the fact that he was a member of the [Organisation 1] meant that he also a member of the Future Movement. 

22. When the inconsistencies in his evidence were put to him under s.424AA of the Act, the applicant responded that, at the time of the interview, he was not in a good psychological condition. He was not sure if saying certain things was in his interest. He also did not have a lawyer and he was on his own. He was fearful and he was concerned about what he needed to say and not to say.

23. In his submission [in] January 2017, the applicant’s representative stated that the [Organisation 1] is a branch of the Future Movement. The [Organisation 1] has an active website and an active Facebook page in Arabic. The Facebook page demonstrates that the members of the [Organisation 1] ‘attend events with and held by the Future Movement’.  It was submitted that although the applicant’s statements regarding the extent of the ‘affiliation’ between the [Organisation 1] and the Future Movement ‘somewhat differed’, ‘the slight inconsistency’ should not undermine the applicant's credibility as the two groups are closely connected. The Tribunal does not find this explanation satisfactory. At the hearing, the applicant not only claimed, for the first time, that he was a member of the Future Movement, he also claimed to have sat on a Future Movement council or committee which considered security and political issues. Regardless of any close connections between the [Organisation 1] and the Future Movement, if the applicant was a member of the Future Movement, he would not have waited to disclose this claim at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal is of the view that the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence cast doubt on the veracity of his claims.

24. Secondly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his activities and the reason why he was targeted in Lebanon.

25. In his written statement, the applicant only referred to being involved in providing assistance to Syrian refugees. He stated that this was the reason he was targeted. At his interview with the delegate, he also stated that he was targeted in Lebanon because of the assistance he had provided to Syrian refugees. He also stated that because of his involvement in providing assistance to Syrian refugees, he was perceived by Hezbollah to have been involved in providing assistance to the Syrian rebels.

26. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant introduced new claims, stating for the first time that he had assisted Syrian rebels by smuggling them across the Syrian border to Lebanon. The applicant claimed that he had also treated the injured amongst the rebels he had smuggled across the border. He claimed for the first time that he had introduced these rebels to the UN and had assisted some in travelling outside of Lebanon. He also claimed for the first time that he had provided financial assistance to the families of the rebels he had helped cross the border.

27. The inconsistencies in his evidence were put to him under s.424AA of the Act. He responded that when he first came to Australia, he did not know what to say that would be in his interest. He did not have representation and the delegate did not ask him about the details. He did not want to leave a negative impression. He stated that he has tried to elaborate on his claims, but he has not changed his evidence. As it was put to the applicant at the hearing, according to his own evidence, he had prepared his written statement with assistance from a legally qualified person. The Tribunal also put to him that, at the interview, he had told the delegate that he had disclosed everything to the person who had assisted him. The applicant responded that, when he applied for his protection visa, it was around Christmas time and the person who had assisted him was concerned that the Department would shut down during the Christmas period, so the application was rushed. He was under pressure and he ‘got lost’. The Tribunal does not find these explanations to satisfactorily address the significant inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. If the applicant had provided assistance to the rebels in the manner described at the hearing, the Tribunal considers it reasonable to expect him to have raised these claims in his detailed written statement to the Department or to have referred to these claims at the interview. The applicant did not do so.

28. In his submission [in] January 2017, the applicant’s representative sought to explain the problematic nature of the applicant’s belated claims by arguing that the rebels the applicant had assisted were people who belonged to or supported the Free Syrian Army and  ‘refugees’ as they were fleeing from persecution by the Syrian Government and other armed groups. It was submitted that ‘although the applicant used two different words, namely refugees and rebels, the applicant was nevertheless referring to the same group of people’. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. In his evidence to the Department, the applicant had claimed to have assisted Syrian refugees and being ‘perceived’ to have provided assistance to the rebels. He had clearly drawn a distinction, and despite the opportunity afforded to him, at no point prior to the Tribunal hearing he had claimed to have smuggled Syrian rebels across the border, to have treated the injured rebels, to have facilitated the departure of some from Lebanon or to have provided financial assistance to the families of the rebels he had helped cross the border.

1. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant also claimed that the interpreter assisting him at the interview was from an Iraqi background, which resulted in misunderstandings. As it was put to the applicant at the hearing, the Tribunal has carefully listened to the audio recording of the interview, which did not indicate that the applicant had encountered any difficulties in comprehending the delegate’s questions and putting his evidence forward. The Tribunal also put to him that, neither at the interview nor at any other point after the interview, had he raised any concerns with regard to the interpreter or the standard of interpreting. The applicant responded that he was not asked by the delegate at the interview whether he understood the interpreter. He did not know if he had the right to object to the interpreter. He stated that this was the reason why in his response to the hearing invitation he had specifically asked for an Egyptian interpreter and not a Lebanese, Syrian or an Iraqi interpreter.

2. In his submission [in] January 2017, the applicant’s representative submitted that, ‘in some instances’ at the interview, the applicant had to ask the interpreter to rephrase questions and the interpreter also asked the applicant ‘at various times’ to repeat what he was saying. It was further submitted that the applicant's responses were ‘at times poorly translated’. However, the only example the applicant’s representative could offer was the following:

   [I]n response to the question about the political party that Rafik Hariri represented, the Applicant answered that Rafik Hariri was the Prime Minister of Lebanon. However, the Iraqi interpreter translated the Applicant's response as 'yes, and he was the head of government.'

3. It was submitted that the poor quality of interpreting adversely affected the manner in which statements were provided by the applicant, depriving him of the opportunity to accurately and consistently present his case. The Tribunal does not agree with this view. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the standard of interpretation at the interview was so inadequate that the applicant was effectively prevented from giving evidence. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the standard of interpreting at the interview explains the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, particularly the inconsistencies between his written claims to the Department and his oral evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is not satisfied that interpreting errors at the interview had deprived the applicant of the opportunity to meaningfully present his case or that they had formed the basis of any adverse credibility findings.

4. Thirdly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his claimed role and participation in demonstrations in Lebanon.

5. In his written statement to the Department, the applicant stated that, in 2008, he was watching a demonstration against the Syrian regime with his friends from their office when they were attacked. The applicant did not claim to have participated in any other demonstration or to have played any role in organising demonstrations in Lebanon.

6. At the interview with the delegate, the applicant did not claim to have had any role or involvement in organising demonstrations at any time.  At the Tribunal hearing, however, the applicant provided a different account, stating that he had organised demonstrations and invited the youth in Lebanon to participate in demonstrations calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. The applicant also claimed that he had engaged in activities, effectively demanding that the Lebanese government to take more control of Hezbollah’s weapons. These claims were not disclosed to the Department either or writing or orally.

7. The above information was put to the applicant under s.424AA of the Act. The applicant responded that, when he arrived in Australia, he had relied to his [sibling]. His [relative] did not accept him at her house, forcing him to leave. When he spoke to the person who had assisted him with preparing his statement, his mind was confused and he was under pressure. His psychological condition has now improved. No further explanations were offered by the applicant’s representative in his submission [in] January 2017. The Tribunal does not find the applicant's explanations to satisfactorily address the inconsistencies in his evidence, which cast serious doubt on the veracity of his claims.

8. Fourthly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his own experiences in Lebanon.

9. In his written statement to the Department, the applicant stated that he was first targeted and injured by Hezbollah in 2008. He claimed that he and his friends were watching a demonstration against the Syrian regime ‘from our office’, when they were attacked by ‘Syrian Nationalists members of Hezbollah’. He suffered a serious injury to his [part of body] and a [blow]. He was also hit with a [baton].

10. At the interview and at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant did not make any references to any incidents of harm in 2008. Instead, he provided information that was inconsistent with his written claims. The applicant stated at the interview that, in May 2012, he attended the funerals of Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Wahed and Sheikh Mohammed al-Merheb, two anti-Syrian clerics killed by the Lebanese army at a checkpoint. At the funeral, someone approached the applicant and asked to talk to him in private. The applicant was then set upon by [number] men, who put a bag on his head and tried to carry him away. He screamed, attracting the attention of his friends. Nevertheless, he was [hit] and suffered a knife injury to [part of body]. The applicant repeated these claims at the Tribunal hearing.

11. The above information was put to the applicant under s.424AA of the Act. He responded that his friends were ‘martyred’ in 2008 and he was assaulted in 2012. He said the office of the Syrian National Party is located on the opposite side of the Future Movement office in [town]. In 2008, members of the Syrian National Party were shooting at the Future Movement office, targeting him and his friends. He was lucky not to get shot. The applicant repeated that, after arriving in Australia, he was forced out of his [sibling]’s house by his [relative]. He was under pressure and confused. He might have made mistakes about dates of events. No further explanations were offered by the applicant’s representative in his submission [in] January 2017. The Tribunal does not find the applicant's explanations to satisfactorily address the inconsistencies identified in his evidence. The problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence casts serious doubt on the veracity of his claims.

12. Fifthly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to the experiences of his friends and/or acquaintances in Lebanon.

13. In his written statement to the Department, the applicant stated that, as a [role] in Lebanon, he worked as a part of a team of [number] men, helping Syrian refugees. In October 2013, [number] of these men were killed by Hezbollah, the Arab Party and the Syrian National Party. He further stated that a third member of the team was shot in the leg after the applicant’s departure from Lebanon.

14. At his interview and at the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided a different account, stating that his friends had been killed as a result of demonstrations in Halba in 2008. Neither at the interview nor at the hearing applicant made any mention of a friend being shot in the leg following his departure from Lebanon.

15. The above information was put to the applicant under s.424AA of the Act. He responded that he had not changed his evidence and that his friend, [name] was assassinated in front of the [building]. He added that, in 2008, two of his friends were killed in [town] and his [sibling] was shot in the [limb] in April 2015. The applicant stated that his [sibling] was shot as a means of putting pressure on the applicant. No further explanations were offered by the applicant’s representative in his submission [in] January 2017. The Tribunal does not find the applicant's explanations to satisfactorily address the significant inconsistencies in his evidence, which cast serious doubt on the credibility of his claims.

16. Sixthly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to the experiences of his family members in Lebanon.

17. In his written statement to the Department, the applicant stated that his father and [sibling] were detained twice and questioned about the applicant’s location. On one occasion, they were detained for [number] days before being released. The applicant did not raise this claim in his oral evidence to the delegate or at the Tribunal hearing. At the hearing, however, when asked about his family, the applicant claimed, for the first time, that his [sibling] had been [shot] [at] in April 2015 by persons adversely interested in him (the applicant).

18. The above information was put to the applicant under s.424AA of the Act. He commented that, in the course of the hearing, he had merely responded to the Tribunal's questions as he was required to do so. He stated that the Tribunal had not specifically asked him what had happened to his family in 2015. He said his memory lapses are due to confusion and he has provided his evidence truthfully. He said he is disturbed and that added that perhaps he would have provided this information at the end of the hearing. 

19. In his submission [in] January 2017, the applicant’s representative also stated that, at the hearing, the applicant was not specifically questioned about his father and [sibling]’s detention on the border. It was submitted that this omission is insufficient to undermine the applicant's credibility and should not be taken into account. The applicant did not believe that such information was relevant as the information concerned his [sibling] and father. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant and his representative’s explanations. The applicant was questioned about his experiences in Lebanon and he had ample opportunity to put his case forward at the hearing. He failed to make any mention of his father and [sibling]’s claimed detention. In contrast, without being prompted, the applicant introduced a new claim in relation to his [sibling],, namely that [sibling] was [shot] [at]  The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant’s father and [sibling] were detained twice and questioned about his location, he would not have failed to disclose this claim in his oral evidence to the Department or the Tribunal. The applicant’s omission seriously undermines the credibility of his claim.

20. Seventhly, the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his residential addresses and employment.

21. In his application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that he resided in [town] until September 2013. He also stated that from September 2013 to November 2013 he lived in Bab al-Tabbaneh. He noted in the application that, during this period, he had moved between [suburb] and [town]. In his written statement to the Department, he stated that he spent most of his time hiding in [suburb] and that he returned home whenever he could, but secretly. At the interview he also stated that he was mostly hiding in [suburb]. At the Tribunal hearing, however, the applicant stated that he had spent only one month in [suburb] after the events in 2008 and that, from July or August 2012, he lived with an acquaintance in the outskirts of [town]. He further stated that from July or August 2012 until his departure from Lebanon he had never returned to his home in [town].

22. With regard to his employment, according to his application for a protection visa, he worked at [a] [business] set up for him by his father until October 2013. This information is inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he had closed the [business] in May 2013.

23. The above information was put to the applicant at the hearing. He responded that the documents in his possession are valid and show that the [business] was closed in July 2012. In relation to the inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his addresses and movements in Lebanon, he stated that the lawyer who had assisted him was in a rush when preparing his application. In addition, he did not remember any dates at that time because his psychological condition was not good. He was not ready to answer questions. No further explanations were offered by the applicant’s representative in his submission [in] January 2017 and additional relevant documents were submitted. The Tribunal does not find the applicant's explanations to satisfactorily address the inconsistencies in his evidence, which cast serious doubt on the veracity of his claims.

24. Eighthly, the applicant submitted a translation of an undated letter by [name], [official] of [town], essentially stating that ‘a sectarian group related to the Syrian system’ had attacked the applicant’s business ‘many times and threatened him’. This resulted in the applicant closing his business and leaving Lebanon. As it was put to the applicant at the hearing, this information is incontinent with the applicant’s own evidence, as he has never claimed that his business was attacked many times. The applicant responded that he had closed the business because of security concerns. They burnt the entrance to his business and, subsequently, he closed it. The applicant’s response does not satisfactorily address the Tribunal's concerns in relation to the purported letter from the mayor of [town]. In view of the inconsistencies between the contents of the letter and the applicant’s own claims, the Tribunal does not attach any weight to the letter and its contents.

25. At the hearing, the applicant sought to explain the problematic nature of his evidence by reference to his psychological condition and mental state following his arrival in Australia. In his submission [in] January 2017, the applicant’s representative submitted that the inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements can be attributed to his ‘poor mental state at the time he provided initial statements’. The submission referred extensively to [counsellor]’s report and contended that the applicant’s mental state ‘had a substantial impact on his ability to accurately and consistently recall information’.

26. Whilst [counsellor]’s report stated that the applicant ‘continues to experience traumatic stress symptoms’, it did not refer to any psychometric assessment tools, such as the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire or the Hopkins Symptom checklist and it did not include a clear diagnosis as to what psychological ailment, if any, the applicant is suffering from. It is not clear if any objective analysis was conducted and no other medical or psychological evidence was submitted by the applicant or his representative. It is not suggested in the report that the applicant was ever prescribed medication for any psychological condition and there was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that has been the case. It is not clear from the report what exact psychological ailment the applicant’s ‘poorer’ ability to provide a consistent narrative of past experiences or to ‘consistently recall information’ in the 2014 to early-mid 2015 period is attributed to. It is also not clear how exactly [counsellor] has made the assessment that, over the past year, the applicant’s ‘disclosures and general discourse’ has been ‘less fragmented and significantly more coherent’. [Counsellor] has offered no examples to illustrate this, particularly in view of the fact that, according to his report, [number] of the counselling sessions with the applicant between December 2014 and March 2015 were conducted by another psychologist.

27. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has attended numerous counselling sessions at [Agency 1]. However, [Counsellor]’s report does not adequately explain the particular, serious deficiencies in the applicant's evidence throughout the process, including significant omissions, internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies between his written and oral evidence. The Tribunal does not accept that the problems identified by the Tribunal in the applicant's evidence can be addressed by reference to his state of mind following his arrival in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that significant weight can be attached to [Counsellor]’s report as an explanation for the problematic nature of the applicant's evidence and the concerns identified by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence cast serious doubt on the truth of his claims.

28. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant’s conflict with his [sibling] and his [relative] following his arrival in Australia had caused him some distress, anguish and financial difficultly. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the problematic nature of his evidence can be addressed by reference to his response to his familial discord.

29. As noted earlier in the decision record, the applicant and his representative referred to errors in interpretation at the interview in order to explain ‘some of the inconsistencies’ in the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal has already addressed this issue in the paragraphs further above. The Tribunal does not accept that the standard of interpreting at the interview explains the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence.

30. The applicant and his representative also sought to explain the inconsistencies in the evidence by stating that the applicant’s application for a protection visa had been ‘rushed’ by his former representative. The applicant stated at the hearing that he had lodged his application around Christmas time and the lawyer who had assisted him was concerned that the Department would shut down during the Christmas period, so the application was rushed.

31. In his submission [in] January 2017, the applicant’s representative submitted that the inconsistencies present in the applicant's visa application were the result of a ‘rushed’ application prepared by the [Agency 2]. It was submitted that the [Agency 2] is a not for profit Community Legal Centre and, whilst the [Agency 2] provides free legal advice to asylum seekers through qualified solicitors, it is ‘under resourced’. There are limited appointments and limited times during which legal assistance can be provided. The [Agency 2] solicitor had spent only [number hours assisting the applicant with his visa application. It was further submitted that the applicant was provided with an Iraqi interpreter when communicating with the [Agency 2] solicitor and he could not ‘adequately understand’ the Iraqi interpreter, resulting in inaccurate information being recorded in his statement. It was submitted that the applicant ‘believed that the Iraqi translator was conveying incorrect information to the solicitor assisting him’. The submission contended that ‘the poor quality of legal assistance’ provided to the applicant, together with the quality of interpreter, contributed to the inconsistencies in his written and oral evidence to the Department.

32. The claims that the applicant was provided with an Iraqi interpreter when communicating with the [Agency 2] solicitor and that he could not ‘adequately understand’ the interpreter were raised for the first time in the representative’s submission [in] January 2017. At no prior point, including at the hearing, did the applicant or his representative refer to any interpreting problems encountered by the applicant when communicating with the [Agency 2] solicitor. The Tribunal is of the view that this belated explanation is a self-serving attempt to remedy the problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. Regardless of the resources available to the [Agency 2], the applicant was assisted by a legally qualified migration agent in preparing his application for a protection visa. The application was lodged [in] December 2013, approximately one week before Christmas. The Tribunal does not find the explanations provided satisfactorily address the numerous inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence throughout the process.

1. For all the above reasons the Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible and truthful witness. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s representative’s submission that the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence ‘are so insignificant that they should not undermine his credibility’. The Tribunal is of the view that the totality of the applicant’s evidence shows a propensity to fabricate claims and tailor and shift his evidence in a manner which achieves his own purpose.

2. The Tribunal has considered the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his case. However, for the reasons outlined above and given the fundamental lack of credibility within his evidence, the Tribunal does not give any weight to any of the documents which he has provided in support of his claims (see Re: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165).

3. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has manufactured his evidence in relation to why he had departed Lebanon. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept that the applicant was a member of the [Organisation 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that he had worked with the [Organisation 1] in any capacity. The Tribunal does not accept that he was a member or supporter of the Future Movement. The Tribunal does not accept that he was a member of any council or committee associated with the Future Movement. The Tribunal does not accept that he had carried out any activities for or on behalf of the [Organisation 1] or the Future Movement. The Tribunal does not accept that he had provided any form of assistance to Syrian refugees in Lebanon or to children of Palestinian refugees in [a] refugee camp. The Tribunal does not accept that he had provided any form of assistance to the Syrian rebels or the Free Syrian Army. The Tribunal does not accept that he had smuggled Syrian rebels across the border. The Tribunal does not accept that he had introduced rebels to UN agencies in Lebanon or that he had assisted some in travelling outside of Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that he had provided financial assistance to the families of the rebels he had helped cross the border. The Tribunal does not accept that he was perceived by Hezbollah or anyone else to have been involved in providing assistance to the Syrian rebels. The Tribunal does not accept that he is imputed with an anti-Syrian regime opinion. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had participated in any anti-Syrian regime demonstrations or any other demonstrations in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that he had played any role in organising any demonstrations in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that he had invited others to participate in demonstrations in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that he had made demands, by any means, that the Lebanese government to take more control of Hezbollah’s weapons. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was targeted and/or  harmed by Hezbollah, the Syrian National Party, any other member of the March 8 Coalition or anyone else in 2008. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s friends or associates were targeted, attacked, harmed or killed on 2008, 2013 or at any other time. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had spent any period of time in hiding in [suburb] or anywhere else in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was attacked and/or seriously injured in 2012 or at any other time. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was threatened by anyone in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had changed his telephone number in Lebanon in order to avoid receiving threatening phone calls. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s business was attacked or damaged in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that his father and [sibling] were detained and/or questioned at any point in time. The Tribunal does not accept that his [sibling] was [shot]

4. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been harmed in the past by anyone or that there is a real chance that he 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, his area of residence or other circumstances.

5. The applicant’s evidence indicates that he 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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).

10. 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

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

    Shahyar Roushan
    Senior Member