1506605 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 174

1506605 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 174 (17 January 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1506605

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Robert Titterton

DATE:17 January 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 17 January 2017 at 10:31am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Lebanon – Particular social group – Homosexuals – Systemic discrimination against homosexuals – Lack of state protection

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994

CASES

Chan v Minster for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 160 CLR 379

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).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visa [in] February 2014. The delegate refused to grant the visa [in] May 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal [in] October 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his 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 issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in Lebanon for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees’ Convention and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

EVIDENCE

1. The information before the Tribunal included the following.

2. First, the application of the applicant [in] February 2014. The application refers to an attached statement of the applicant. The statement is unsigned and undated.  In summary, the statement states that:

   (a)the applicant was born in Lebanon in 1994.

   (b)his parents were divorced when he was [between age and age] years old. Initially he lived with his mother, then [a relative].

   (c)one of his [relative’s] children started having sexual relations with him. This continued for about [number] years.

   (d)after this, the applicant went to live with his father and the applicant tried to change himself and start dating girls.

   (e)in 2009, his father remarried, and the applicant then went to live with his grandmother. The applicant changed schools about this time and had sexual relations with many girls.

   (f)after the applicant graduated from high school in 2011, he went to university and started “clubbing”. On one occasion he met “a guy who was really nice to me”, but when the applicant tried to kiss him the other man hit him. The applicant was “really upset” and did not know what to do with his life. He ended up seeing a psychologist. He decided to move countries to start life afresh and focus on his studies, and decided to come to Australia.

   (g)he arrived in Australia [in] January 2013, and lives with his [relative and their] family. He started using smart phone applications to find men; he has met four and had sexual relations with two.

   (h)He claims that he feels guilty and scared that someone from his family might find out that he was homosexual, and that they would kick him out of their house.

3. Secondly, the decision of the delegate dated [in]May 2015, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was homosexual, or that there was more than a remote chance of him being seriously harmed on account of his claimed sexuality.

4. Thirdly, a number of documents sent to the Tribunal by the applicant’s agent by email [in] October 2016. These documents include submissions, statutory declarations, a psychologist’s report, and evidence of social activities of the applicant through the use of gay dating applications.

5. In summary, the submissions state that the applicant struggles with his true sexual orientation and that his coming out as a homosexual has been intensified by his fears arising from religious, family and community rejection of homosexuality. It is submitted that it was only relatively recently that the applicant had finally accepted his true sexual orientation (that is, after his arrival in Australia). It is submitted that the applicant is “befuddled” by the level of freedom and sexual inclusiveness which Australia offers. It is submitted that the applicant is an introverted person trying to come to terms with his sexual orientation in the face of a new yielding bigotry from his family. It is submitted that the applicant has been increasingly meeting men through social media applications. He fears informing his family that he is gay, as their reaction would be “dialectic”. His family is both religiously and socially conservative, and the revelation that the applicant is homosexual would bring “enormous ignominy” on the family. The applicant has recently informed his mother of his homosexuality, and her reaction was one of denial and sadness.

6. It is submitted that the country information supports the applicant’s claims that homosexuality is not tolerated in Lebanon and that homophobia is “rampant” throughout the country. It is submitted that there is an “ontological gulf” which separates the views of the mainstream Lebanese society in terms of acceptance of homosexuality and the forbearing Western culture. In this submitted that the credible independent evidence confirms that even in what is regarded as cosmopolitan Beirut, gay friendly clubs are being raided and closed down by the police, and the reports of assault and the rest of gay friendly patrons continue. It is submitted the cultural and legal impediments invariably result in homosexuals opting to remain silent and to remain in “the closet”, and even marrying in the effort to meet societal conventions.

7. It is submitted that the applicant would have to modify his behaviour if he returned to Lebanon by concealing or suppressing his homosexuality in the effort to avoid serious harm or arrest, which would amount to persecutory curtailment of his sexual identity.

8. It is submitted that the country information unequivocally states that there is a real and pronounced danger for overt homosexuals in Lebanon, and there remains a significant threat to the applicant’s personal safety, basic human rights and human dignity should he return there.

9. Included in the applicant’s documents were three statutory declarations. Each of these declarations refer to the three different authors meeting the applicant through a gay dating application, one author stating that he formed a two-month emotional mental and physical relationship with the applicant.

10. Also attached to the application was a report of [treating doctore] [in]October 2016. [Treating doctor] states that he is a Professor of Psychological medicine. He relevantly states:

    [I] certify that [the applicant] visited me several times seeking psychological therapy duties difficult parents divorce. His father got married again as well as his mother, but he felt he was a stranger among his parents which caused a nervous breakdown. He lived in isolation away from society for he felt lonely even with his family.

    This really bad situation led him to homosexuality. It is medically caused by the rejection of the father image, leading to inhibition of the subconscious mind which disrupted the function of the glands responsible for male hormone secretion which initially activates attraction to women. I also assert that I personally advised him to travel in order to get over this bad situation.

The hearing

1. At the commencement of the hearing the applicant provided to the Tribunal a reference of [Parish Priest 1], Parish Priest of St Elias’ Melkite Catholic Church. [Parish Priest 1] relevantly states:

   I have known [the applicant] for a long time as I’m the parish priest of St Elias Melkite Catholic Church of Australia and New Zealand where he always comes to pray, and found him to be highly respected and dignified person, well-groomed in manners on honest. He is [devoted Christian who seldom misses his commitment to the church and the community. He is loving and supportive person not only to himself but to the entire community and church.

   [The applicant] discussed social, personal and financial difficulties in Australia and Lebanon with me. I believe, through the consultations, I brought [the applicant] out of depression and helped him to deal with conflict and other people’s opinions regarding his sexuality by guiding him to make better personal decisions.

   [The applicant] has confirmed to me that he was being a victim of his parents mistreatment, leading him to a life of rejection from family and peers.

My thoughts aside about his sexuality, I have noticed a great deal of positive changes from [the applicant] over that time I have known him. [The applicant] has a bright future ahead of him and he deserves to live like any other man in his age.

1. In summary, the applicant gave the following evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing.

2. The applicant was born [in] January 1994. He has [siblings]

3. He finished year [of school] in Lebanon, aged [age].

4. He came to Australia when aged [years]. He had been granted a student visa. Originally, he lived his [relative]. Now he lives in a shared house. He is currently working as a [occupation].

5. His first sexual activity was with his [relative], he was [years]and the cousin was [years]. This went on for about 4 years. By this time he thought he was gay, but he thought he should go out with girls. He had two girlfriends at high school

6. He told his mother that he was gay this year. She took the news very badly. (The Tribunal notes that the applicant played a recording of his mother reacting badly to the revelation of his homosexuality. Her Arabic language was translated by the interpreter present at the hearing.)

7. She thought that it was just a phase he was going through. She told him to go to clubs where he might meet some girls. He does not have a lot to do with his family, and thinks that his father and his [sibling]would not approve of his homosexuality.

8. The applicant first had a sexual relationship with a man in Australia after they met on [Social media] shortly after he arrived. He was still living with his family. This was a one night affair. Since then his sex life has improved. He is currently in a relationship with a [person 1], and has been since the start of the year. They do not socialise as a couple, but they have lunch and coffees together.

9. The applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that he has not “come out” as gay to his family in Australia. He believes that he would be thrown out of his house in Australia were he to do so. So he has not told his [relative]. Nor has he told his work mates.

10. The applicant first saw a psychologist in Lebanon when he was about [age]. He was being bullied at school, and had no friends. The psychologist [treating doctor] told the applicant to leave Lebanon. The applicant is not receiving any psychological counselling at the present time.

11. The applicant said that he saw a priest to confess, and the priest then offered him counselling.  The applicant said that getting closer to God made him accept himself as homosexual. He said that this was because God’s power was within him.

12. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he reconciled his homosexuality with his Christian faith. He said that he believed in God, and that God loves everyone, so long as you do good on earth, you will not offend God.

13. The applicant stated that he fears being rejected by his family, and being harassed for being homosexual. He fears that his family will harm him. The Tribunal asked him whether he thought this was likely to happen. He said that homosexuality was not considered to be natural, and was “unnatural” and a “disease”.

14. The applicant told the Tribunal that his mother lives in [town 1], and his father in Beirut. The applicant lived with his father in Beirut before coming to Australia. He was born however in a small village called [town 2]. He lived there until he was about [age] years old. He has many relatives living there. He described it in terms of being an undeveloped and isolated rural environment and that he would never live there again.

15. The applicant’s principal fear on returning to live in Lebanon is that he will be harassed by his relatives, particularly his male relatives including his father and his [siblings]. He says his father would definitely go after him. He said that even though Lebanon is better than other countries in the Middle East, there would still be mockery and he would not be able to live openly as a gay man. The applicant wants to live openly and not live with a low profile as indicated in the DFAT country report.

Post hearing submissions

1. After the hearing the applicant’s agent sent a bundle of country information to the Tribunal. In summary, this information includes the following:

   (a)a report of the Daily Star dated 16 July 2014, Banned Anal Exam Still Being Used As Homosexuality Test;

   (b)a report of Gay Star News dated 23 February 2016, Police Raid Lebanon on Bathhouse, Arrest 27 Men on Gay Sex Claims;

   (c)a report on a private blog dated 23 February 2016 Two Men, Suspected of Being Gay, Arrested and Tortured for Three Weeks by the Lebanese Police;

   (d)a report on a private blog dated 23 February 2016, Being Gay Is Worse Than Being Isis: Two Lebanese Men Tortured for Three Weeks in Prison over Their Sexuality;

   (e)the World Report for 2016 (events of 2015) of Human Rights Watch;  

   (f)An article published on the website ( on 19 February 2016 Lebanese Man Describes Health Family Kicked Him out after Discovering He Is Gay.

CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS

Is the applicant a citizen of Lebanon?

1. The Tribunal has sighted the original 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.

2. Some aspects of the applicant’s evidence militated against a finding of his claimed homosexuality, while other aspects supported his claims. The Tribunal found that the applicant was able to discuss his sexuality in a straight-forward and spontaneous manner, and found that there was evidence to support his claims about his sexuality: in particular the evidence of his parish priest [Parish Priest 1]. The Tribunal finds that while the applicant may have been uncertain of his sexuality during his teenage years, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the applicant now considers himself to be homosexual.

3. The Tribunal accepts and finds that he fears being harmed by his family, particularly by his father and his [sibling], were he to return to Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that he fears ongoing discrimination, harm and mistreatment if he returns to Lebanon, including a fear of being physically harmed and killed. The Tribunal accepts that he would have to limit if not entirely eliminate his lifestyle and presentation as a gay man were he to return to Lebanon. The applicant’s evidence about these matters appeared to be credible and unembellished. The Tribunal notes that it questioned the applicant over approximately two hours, and his testimony was substantially consistent with his statement and his evidence to the delegate. The Tribunal also takes into account the corroborative evidence in the form of the statutory declarations of lovers, the use of social media to find partners and, in particular, the evidence of [Parish Priest 1]

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. 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 foreseeable future.”[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]

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

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

   [3] 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.[4] Evidence that the applicant has been persecuted in the past gives powerful support to the conclusion that the claimed fear is well-founded.[5] 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.[6] An applicant does not have to show past persecution in order to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.[7]

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

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

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

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

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

3. The starting point for assessment of country information is the DFAT Country Report for Lebanon dated 18 December 2015. Relevantly, the report states:

   3.77     Lebanon prohibits 'unnatural acts' (effectively, sodomy) as well as 'violating public morals'. Both provisions have been used in the past to prosecute homosexual activity. For example, in 2013 a gay club outside of Beirut was raided and those inside were charged with violating public morals. DFAT contacts have also said gay people have been subject to harsh treatment, sometimes including rape, in detention. The maximum penalty for 'sexual intercourse contrary to nature' is one year imprisonment.

   3.78     Despite this, Beirut enjoys a reputation as an open, relatively gay-friendly environment and provides a degree of anonymity, compared to other, more conservative areas of Lebanon and the region more broadly. Aside from isolated examples, homosexuality has not normally in recent years been prosecuted in Lebanon. Incidents of invasive medical tests undertaken to 'prove' that a homosexual act had taken place have now, according to contacts, stopped. Lesbian and gay clubs exist in Beirut and DFAT contacts report that lesbian and gay people can generally avoid prosecution by keeping a low profile. Specific support groups for lesbian and gay people exist, and also provide support to bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

   3.79     Bisexual, transgender or intersex people all keep a very low profile in Lebanon. Media has reported that bisexual, transgender and intersex people have taken refuge in Lebanon from across the Middle East. These groups are likely to maintain a low profile due to the presumption of official or societal discrimination against them.

   3.80    Overall, DFAT assesses that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people face a moderate risk of societal and official discrimination and violence. DFAT further assesses that, particularly in Beirut, an individual would be able to lead a relatively open life but would still need to keep a low profile and would be at risk of societal and familial ostracisation.

4. The various country information provided by the applicant is referred to above. Other sources have also referred to discrimination and abuse on the basis of sexuality. The Tribunal notes the following:

   (a)Amnesty International's Annual Report for 2013 found that in Lebanon, LGBTI  people faced discrimination and abuse;[8]

   (b)a recent US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights for Lebanon (2015) indicates that official and societal discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people persists. It referred to non-government organizations claiming that LGBTI persons underreported incidents of violence and abuse due to negative social stereotypes;[9]

   (c)Agence France Presse reported in May 2013 that Lebanon had a reputation as the most liberal country in the conservative Middle East, but even a “night on the town” for gays can end in arrest and humiliating sexuality “tests”. They might be less persecuted than elsewhere in the region, but outside a few areas of the capital Beirut, Lebanese homosexuals are largely stigmatised and discriminated against;[10]

   (d)Recent reports include Lebanese police launching “a sting operation targeting gay men across the country” in September 2014, that included the arrest of 27 men for alleged “gay sex” and “indecency” during a raid on a gay venue in Beirut, with a further raid occurring a few days later and unconfirmed reports of a raid on a private home where gay men were meeting in Tripoli; and of police using WhatsApp to target gay men, arresting men suspected of being gay after going through their WhatsApp contacts;[11]

   (e)The August 2014 article Lebanon’s LGBT Community Is Still Suffering Abuses[12] which relevantly states:

   There is no dispute that the situation for LGBT individuals in Lebanon is much better than it was 10 years ago, but the achievements of the LGBT community remain fragile. Article 534 (or the interpretation of it) and the failure of the Lebanese government to take radical steps to combat institutionalized homophobia continues to create space for detractors within the security and the judiciary system to violate the basic human rights and dignity of LGBT individuals.
   Earlier this year, five men were arrested in the Msaytbeh neighborhood of Beirut after police had received a call informing them of “illegal activities” taking place in an apartment. According to the arrested men, the investigation centered around two key issues: figuring out the relationship of the five young men to each other; how they met; and whether they were having sex with each other.
    Following the investigation, Judge Randa Yakzan ordered the police to conduct anal tests on the five men in order to “prove” their homosexuality. The tests were conducted by Dr. Ahmad al-Mokdad. Both Ms. Yakzan and Dr. Mokdad ignored the circulars issued by the Lebanese Order of Physicians and the minister of justice, not to mention the public outrage against barbaric practices.
   

   [8] 'Amnesty International Annual Report Lebanon 2013', Amnesty International, 23 May 2013, CX308223

   [9] US Department of State 2015, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015 – Lebanon, 'Lebanon “liberal” for Mideast, but gays still targeted', Agence France Presse (AFP), 8 May 2013, CX307196

   [11] "Lebanon Launches Police Raids Targeting Gay Men", Huffington Post, The, 15 September 2014, CX1B9ECAB6107 < ; "Lebanon's LGBT community is still suffering abuses", Now, 25 August 2014, "Lebanese Police Use WhatsApp to Persecute LGBT Citizens", Human Rights First, 16 October 2014,

   [12] a clear and official stance against these violations from the Lebanese government, security authorities and the judicial system, the LGBT community will remain at the mercy of the most corrupt and/or misinformed members of those institutions.

5. The Tribunal has referred above to country information provided to it by the applicant. This includes the report of Gay Star News dated 23 February 2016, Police Raid Lebanon on Bathhouse, Arrest 27 Men on Gay Sex Claims. A similar report appears at and states:

   Human rights and sexual health groups have demanded the immediate release of 27 men arrested in a bath house in Lebanon on suspicion of having gay sex.

   The judicial police’s Moral Protection Bureau raided the Turkish-style bath house in the Beirut neighbourhood of Hamra-Concord on Saturday night.

   The raid followed the arrest of an individual who told police that the venue was a gathering place for men seeking sexual encounters with other men.

   Those arrested include the owner of the bath house, employees and several clients. All the men were still being held in custody at the Hbeish police station at the time the organisations issued a statement condemning the incident.

6. The applicant also provided the Tribunal with the World Report for 2016 (events of 2015) of Human Rights Watch. Relevantly, the report states Lebanon’s Penal Code punishes “any sexual intercourse contract to the order of nature” and up to one year in prison. In recent years, authorities conducted raids to arrest persons allegedly involved in same-sex conduct, some of whom were subjected to torture. The report also states that in January 2015, five men arrested on suspicion of consensual same-sex sexual activity were reported to have been subjected to a normal examinations by doctor, despite the Lebanese order of physicians declaring in 2012 it was impermissible for doctors to carry out such examinations, which violate the international prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, and a circular from the Minister of Justice.

7. In light of the above, the Tribunal finds that, despite the presence of a gay male community in parts of Beirut, the country information suggests that gay men face a real risk of the deliberate infliction of serious harm in Lebanon, including in Beirut which is said to be more tolerant. The Tribunal is satisfied that in the present case the risk of Convention persecution exists in the country as a whole, and that safe relocation within Lebanon is therefore not reasonably open to the applicant.

8. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant were to return to his home area in Lebanon and did not hide his sexual orientation, he would face a real chance of suffering harm at the hands of his family and in the community because of his membership of the particular social group “gay men”. It also accepts that, even if the applicant were to relocate to Beirut or another part of the country, he would continue to face a risk of harm. The Tribunal is satisfied that requiring the applicant to hide his membership of the particular social group “gay men” in Lebanon by concealing or suppressing his sexuality would amount to a persecutory curtailment of his sexual identity.

9. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm capable of amounting to persecution for the purposes of s.91R of the Act for the essential and significant reason of his membership of a particular social group comprising gay men in Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future, should he return there.

CONCLUSION

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

2. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

R. C. Titterton
Member