1506832 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 500

1506832 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 500 (2 March 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1506832

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:2 March 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 02 March 2017 at 11:06am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Lebanon – Religion – Christian – Previous harassment by Hezbollah - Children Christian Palestinians – Stateless – Will suffer discrimination – Statelessness alone not enough to attract refugee status

LEGISLATION

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

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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 applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Background

2. The second named applicant (the applicant son) and the third named applicant (the applicant daughter) are the children of the first named applicant (the applicant). The applicant is a national of Lebanon. The applicant daughter and the applicant son are stateless and former residents of Lebanon. They travelled to Australia on a travel document issued to Palestinian refugees by the government of Lebanon. All three applicants applied for the protection visa, which is the subject of this review, [in] July 2014.

3. The applicant completed an application form 866C, submitting her own claims for protection. The other applicants submitted application forms 866D for members of the same family unit.

   Protection Visa Application

4. In her application form, the applicant stated that she has faced harassment following her husband’s death and until she came to Australia. She fears being harassed, kidnapped and killed by armed militia groups, namely Amal and Hezbollah. These groups were responsible for her husband’s death, having accused him of being an Israeli spy because he was working in ‘a [business]’. After her husband’s death, these groups, as well as the women in her district, started to harass her and her children and ‘force’ them to change their religion.

5. In a statement attached to her application for a protection visa, the applicant mother made the following claims:

6. The applicant is Christian. Her husband, [name], died after being kidnapped ‘several times’ by the Amal movement and Hezbollah. Her husband was a Christian Palestinian and he was accused by spying for Israel because he used to work on a [certain] system at [name] district. The district was previously occupied by Israel but now it is under the control of Amal and Hezbollah.

7. Her son, [name] was born in [year] and her daughter, [name], was born in [year]. They both have ‘Palestinian citizenship’, but not Lebanese citizenship. Their travel documents are now expired.

8. In 2004, her husband was ‘kidnapped’ by the armed militias of Amal. He was beaten and tortured to give information and contact details of some of his clients. He was also accused of spying for Israel. He was released two days later. After two weeks he was forced to go to the Hezbollah ‘centre’, where he was again detained and ‘severely tortured and beaten’.

9. In 2009, her husband travelled to the [country] and, shortly after returning to Lebanon, he died of [medical condition] complications ‘as a result of being tortured and beaten’ and being ‘subjected to inhuman and aggressive interrogation by the armed militias of Amal movement’. Her husband was otherwise a healthy person with no family history of [illness] or other complications. Her husband’s [illness] was ‘caused [by] being tortured by the armed militias’. 

10. After her husband’s death, she faced ‘harassment’ until she ‘ran away’ to Australia. She was ‘chased’ by armed militias in order to provide them with information about her husband's clients. She was also asked for her husband’s ‘notes and the documents’ in relation to the [business]. She provided them with documents relating to the [business] because she was afraid and worried for her children’s safety. However, she told them that she had destroyed all the notes and documents relating to her husband's work. She was also harassed by Muslim women in her district because they had been told that Christian men who worked in the [business] were Israeli spies.

11. Her son was asked to join the armed militias. He was also asked ‘several times’ to travel to [country] to fight, but he refused. Her daughter was ‘chased by her friends’, who were trying to convince her to wear the veil and ‘take religious lessons to learn Quran’. She refused because she believes in Christianity and she attended the church every Sunday in [town]. Some Christian girls were convinced to change their religion and wear the veil and they were given ‘monthly wages’ by Hezbollah. They were also engaged to Hezbollah fighters after the latter returned from [country].

12. The applicant came to Australia [in] December 2012. She departed Australia following the expiry of her [temporary] visa. She returned to Australia on a [different] visa, but the [event] was ‘cancelled’ [in] May 2014.

13. She is unable to return to Lebanon because she will be ‘oppressed, raped and tortured by militias of Amal and Hezbollah. Her children are also unable to return to Lebanon because they are Palestinian refugees.

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

    ·Copies and translations of birth certificates issued in respect of the applicant son and the applicant daughter by the Directorate-General of the Personal Status for the Management of Palestinian Refugees Affairs, Ministry of the Interior and Municipalities.

    ·Copy and translation of a Family Registration Record, issued ‘specifically for the Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon’, by the Directorate-General for Political Affairs and Refugees, Ministry of the Interior and Municipalities. The applicant’s husband, the applicant son and the applicant daughter are listed on the document.

    ·Copy and translation of a death certificate in respect of the applicant’s husband. The document states that the applicant’s husband died [in] June 2009 as a result of [medical conditions].

    ·Copies of the applicant son’s and the applicant daughter’s Document de Voyage pour les Refugies Palestiniens.

    The Interview

15. The applicant attended an interview (the interview) with the Department [in] November 2014 in connection with her application. Where relevant, the Tribunal will refer to her oral evidence to the delegate below.

16. The delegate refused to grant the visas [in] April 2015. The delegate did not accept that the applicant’s husband was detained and tortured by Hezbollah and/or Amal. Nor did he accept that the applicant had experienced adverse attention by Hezbollah after the death of her husband. He did not accept that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in Lebanon.

    Application for Review

17. The applicants applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. They were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

18. In support of her application for review, the applicant submitted a further statement in which she repeated her previous claims.

19. The applicant stated that her children do not hold any nationality due to their father being Palestinian and do not have citizenship rights.

20. She stated that her husband was kidnapped ‘several times’, tortured and accused of dealing with Israel ‘which led to his death’. When his kidnappers released him, he fled Lebanon and after some time she found out that he was sick. She asked him to return to Lebanon to see his children and he passed away soon after. After her husband’s death, she faced interrogation and harassment by Hezbollah, who asked for information about her husband’s [business]. However, she had burnt everything after they had closed the business.

21. She stated that she came to Australia to get engaged and asked her mother to look after her children. She then ended the relationship and returned to Lebanon to be with her children. She stated that her son also faced harassment from the children of some Hezbollah members. Fearing for the safety of her children and herself, she ‘had no choice but to run away…from Lebanon to escape interrogation, harassment and the risk to be killed at any time’.

22. In a separate statement, the applicant son recounted his father’s experiences in Lebanon. He stated that he remembers his father being ‘chased’ again in 2008 by the people. After his father’s death, Hezbollah ‘chased’ his mother in order to obtain information from her. She received many threats to the effect that her children would be harmed if she did not speak the truth.

23. He stated that school wasn't a safe place for him and his sister. They were amongst a handful of Christians in the school. They were mocked by being told ‘you Christian Palestinians, are you feeling scared?’ His friends, [names], did ‘their best’ to encourage him to ‘join Hezbollah, carry and weapon and go fight Israel’ (sic). He heard many words at school on a daily basis which he found hurtful. His sister was also encouraged to wear the hijab and convert to Islam by her classmates. She was under ‘peer pressure’ and thought they were right. His mother made them understand at home why they should not listen.

24. He stated that, as Palestinian refugees, he and his sister do not have permanent residence anywhere. They do not have Lebanese citizenship. At present, Lebanon is a dangerous place for them because they are Palestinians. If they were to return to Lebanon they will be chased by the same group ‘because Hezbollah doesn't forget anyone’. There are no males to protect his mother, she would not have an income, and she could be harassed in ‘the camp’ because she is a single mother. If they return to Lebanon, they have to live in Palestinian camps because it won't be safe for them to live in [town]. They will force him to be a young soldier, to carry weapons and fight Hezbollah. They also might force his sister to convert to Islam and get married. He and his sister do not have the Lebanese ID and it will be very hard for them to cope.

25. The applicant also submitted the following additional documents:

    ·     Copy and translation of a letter from the [official] of [town], [name], dated [in] October 2015. In his letter, [official] states that the applicant’s late husband’s profession was to manage a ‘[business]’. Her husband was ‘chased’, detained, beaten and tortured by ‘some members of the Lebanese parties who dominate south Lebanon’ (sic). He was accused of collaborating with Israel until he died. The same people interrogated and harassed the applicant until she left the village ‘secretly and travelled with her children to Australia’. After her departure, the same people interrogated the applicant’s mother.

    ·     Copy and translation of a letter from [name], the applicant’s parish priest in Lebanon, dated [in] November 2015. In his letter, [priest] stated that the applicant husband had faced continuous harassment by ‘some political parties who dominate south Lebanon’. The harassments forced him to close his business and migrate to [country]. In [country], he was ‘affected by some diseases’ (sic) and returned to Lebanon where he died. After his death, these accusations continued against his family forcing them to leave Lebanon.

    ·     Copy of a letter from the applicant’s [family member], [name], dated [in] July 2015, stating that in 2004 [family member] was still living in Lebanon when [the applicant] went to [family member’s] house with her two children in a stressed state and informed [family member] that Hezbollah had taken her husband. He was released after [number] days and it appeared that he had suffered sleep deprivation, as well as physical and psychological abuse. In 2005, Hezbollah again took the applicant’s husband away for interrogation, but only for a few hours. He was again interrogated on two occasions in 2006 and was released ‘after having undergone oppression’. He complained to the police, but he received no response.

    ·     Copy of a letter from [name] MP, State Member for [electorate], expressing support for the applicant’s protection visa application.

    ·     Two separate letters by [name], Principal of [name] High School, in support of the applicant son and the applicant daughter.

    ·     Psychological Assessment report, dated [in] June 2015, authored by [name], Psychologist, in relation to the applicant son. The report states that the applicant son was referred by [name] for assessment for ‘symptoms of depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’. [The psychologist]’s assessment was based on a clinical interview and a Behaviour Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2). The applicant son was diagnosed as being [diagnosis]. The report states that the At-Risk range may identify a significant problem that may not be severe enough to require formal treatment or may identify the potential of developing a problem that needs monitoring. He was also diagnosed as being in the [diagnosis]. It was stated that a ‘stable home environment in the context of permanent residency in Australia will assist in stabilising and maintaining [the applicant son’s] mental state’. It was stated that the applicant son is ‘encouraged’ to continue psychological intervention to assist in treating and managing current symptoms. It was also recommended that the applicant son be referred to a Child/Adolescent Psychiatrist by his GP for ‘further assessment and recommendations’.

    ·     Psychological Assessment report, dated [in] June 2015, authored by [name], Psychologist, in relation to the applicant daughter. The report states that the applicant daughter was referred by [name] for assessment for ‘symptoms of depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’. [The psychologists]’s assessment was based on a clinical interview and a Behaviour Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2). The applicant daughter was diagnosed as being in the ‘At-Risk’ classification range for anxiety. The report states that the At-Risk range may identify a significant problem that may not be severe enough to require formal treatment or may identify the potential of developing a problem that needs monitoring. It was stated that a ‘stable home environment in the context of permanent residency in Australia will assist in stabilising and maintaining [the applicant daughter’s] mental state’. It was stated that the applicant daughter is ‘encouraged’ to continue psychological intervention to assist in treating and managing current symptoms.

    The Hearing

26. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal [in] November 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also took evidence via telephone from the applciants’ [family member] in Australia, [name]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. The representative did not attend the hearing.

27. At the hearing the applicant son and the applicant daughter submitted to the Tribunal a number of documents, including certificates of merit, certificates of achievement and certificates of academic excellence received from [name] High School. The applicant son also submitted copies of various other awards and certificates he had received in recognition of his contribution to school and community life, as well as educational qualifications he has obtained in Australia. In addition, he provided the Tribunal with a USB, containing two video files: the first is a video recording of the applicant son giving a speech regarding his experiences at the [name] High School Multicultural Day and the second is a video recording of the applicant daughter giving a speech at her school.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

28. 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.

29. 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).

30. 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.

31. 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’).

32. 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); Thematic Report - Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon (published on 2 March 2015); and Country Report - Lebanon (published on 18 December 2015).

    Analysis, Findings and Reasons

    The Applicant

33. There were a number of inconsistencies between the applicant’s written claims to the Department and her oral evidence to the delegate and the Tribunal. These inconsistencies, essentially, related to the number of instances the applicant had claimed her husband was taken from his home by Hezbollah, the number of instances she was interrogated by Hezbollah, following her husband’s death, and whether she had given any documents to Hezbollah.

34. Having carefully listened to the applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate and her oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Tribunal formed a clear impression that the applicant’s narrative of her experiences in Lebanon was based on actual events. The applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate and her evidence at the hearing were entirely consistent and a departure from the exaggerated tone of her written claims. The Tribunal, therefore, gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepts her oral evidence as a true account of her experiences. In taking this view, the Tribunal has also relied on the applicant son’s oral evidence to the Tribunal and the additional evidence submitted by the applicant in support of her application for review, including the letters from her [family member], her parish priest in Lebanon and the [official] of [town].

1. The Tribunal, therefore, accepts that the applicant’s husband, a Palestinian Christian, owned and operated a [business] in [town]. The Tribunal accepts that the business closed down in 2006.The Tribunal accepts that the applicant helped her husband in the running of the business. The Tribunal considers it plausible that, in the period before and after Hezbollah’s war with Israel in 2006, the applicant’s husband had come under suspicion by a paranoid Hezbollah[1] due to the nature of his business. The Tribunal accepts that, between 2004 and 2006, the applicant’s husband was taken from his home by Hezbollah, detained for short periods of time, interrogated and mistreated. The Tribunal accepts that, in 2006, the applicant’s husband travelled to the [country]. The Tribunal accepts that, when the applicant’s husband visited Lebanon in 2008, he was again interrogated by Hezbollah. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s husband returned to Lebanon in 2009, where he died as a result of [medical conditions].

   [1] See, for example, Totten, M, Hanging With Hezbollah, World Affairs Journal, 1 January 2007,

2. The Tribunal accepts that, after her husband’s death, the applicant was also subjected to interrogation by Hezbollah. The Tribunal accepts that she was questioned for an hour or two by Hezbollah on three separate occasions in 2009, 2010 and towards the end of 2011. Hezbollah had asked her the same questions they had asked her husband, which related to the identity of their customers while they were running their [business]. The Tribunal accepts that she had been unable to provide Hezbollah with any additional information. The applicant did not claim that she was ever mistreated or seriously harmed by Hezbollah and the Tribunal is not satisfied that being questioned by Hezbollah for an hour or two on three occasions over a period of three years amounts to serious or significant harm.

3. As it was put to the applicant at the hearing, her evidence does not suggest that Hezbollah has an ongoing serious adverse interest in her. The last time the applicant was questioned by Hezbollah was at the end of 2011. The applicant departed Lebanon for Australia [in] December 2012. She told the Tribunal that she had no further encounters with Hezbollah from the end of 2011 until her departure from Lebanon. The applicant returned to Lebanon In February 2013 and again departed for Australia in April 2014. She had no further encounters with Hezbollah during her period of stay in Lebanon. Whilst the [official] of [town], in his supporting letter, stated that, after the applicant’s departure from Lebanon, her mother was interrogated, the applicant did not advance this claim. In her evidence to the delegate she stated that her mother had experienced no problems in Lebanon and in her evidence to the Tribunal she did not claim that her mother has been interrogated, harassed or harmed by anyone in Lebanon. The Tribunal, therefore, does not accept that the applicant’s mother was interrogated by anyone in Lebanon.

4. At the hearing, the applicant stated that she is still fearful. She said Hezbollah do not forget and that, as a widow, she is susceptible to harassment. When asked what she meant by ‘harassment’, she said they can question her, making her fearful. They think they can intimidate her into providing information that her husband did not give. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicant’s past experiences have made her fearful and apprehensive. The Tribunal also appreciates that, as a widow, the applicant feels vulnerable in Lebanon. However, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that Hezbollah do not have any ongoing adverse interest in the applicant or any intention to harm her. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will be subjected to serious harm at the hands of Hezbollah for the reason of any impression that she is an Israeli spy, her imputed political opinion, her religion or her membership of a particular social group, including her family, women in Lebanon, Christian women in Lebanon, single (Christian) women in Lebanon, widowed (Christian) women in Lebanon, any other subset of these groups or any other particular social group arising on the face of the evidence. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will be subjected to significant harm at the hands of Hezbollah.

5. In her application form, the applicant stated that after her husband’s death Amal and Hezbollah, as well as the women in her district, started to harass her and her children and ‘force’ them to change their religion. The applicant did not advance these claims before the Tribunal. At the hearing, when asked what harassment she had faced, she only referred to being interrogated by Hezbollah. The Tribunal, therefore, is not satisfied that the applicant had faced harassment amounting to serious or significant harm by women or the general population in her district. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was forced to change her religion. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that she would face harm or harassment by the general population in her area amounting to serious or significant harm in Lebanon. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that she would be forced to change her religion.

6. The Tribunal appreciates that, after her husband’s death, the applicant had struggled financially. She stated at the hearing that she resided with her mother in [town] and that she received limited financial assistance from her [sibling], who resides in Australia. She also stated that she received some vocational training for 6 months after her husband died and opened a [shop]. However, she had no customers and could not pay the rent. The applicant has not claimed that she would be unable to reside in her mother’s or that her [sibling]’s financial assistance, albeit limited, would cease if she were to return to Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that, like many others in Lebanon, the applicant may find her financial circumstances challenging. The Tribunal, however, is not satisfied that, if the applicant were to return to Lebanon, she would suffer serious harm, including significant economic hardship or denial of access to basic services or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood, where such hardship or denial threatens the applicant’s capacity to subsist.

7. The Tribunal is not satisfied 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 she will be subjected to any form of discrimination or 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 from the authorities that would involve the infliction of severe 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 she 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 her life or the death penalty. 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 she will be subjected to significant harm.

   The Applicant Son

8. In her written evidence, the applicant had claimed that the applicant son was asked to join armed militias. He was also asked ‘several times’ to travel to [country] to fight, but he refused. She had also referred to her son having faced harassment. In her oral evidence to the delegate, the applicant clarified that her son was never directly approached by anyone with the intention of recruiting him. She stated that her son was told that martyrs go to paradise and one of his friends asked him if he wanted to go and fight in [country]. At the hearing, she further clarified that the majority of the pupils at the school attended by her son in [town] were Shia. His son was reminded of his religion and ethnicity. They told him that, as a Palestinian, he is persecuted and he should carry arms in order fight for his rights. They were trying to ‘brain wash’ him to join Hezbollah.

9. In his statement, submitted in support of the application for review, the applicant son stated that he did not feel safe at school as he was amongst a handful of Christians. They were mocked by being told ‘you Christian Palestinians, are you feeling scared?’ His friends encouraged him to join Hezbollah, carry weapons and fight Israel. He heard many words at school on a daily basis which he found hurtful. At the hearing, the applicant son stated that, at school, he was mocked and told that he was weak. They also put peer pressure on him to ‘help them to fight’. This happened on a daily basis. He felt ‘annoyed’, but he could not afford to go anywhere else. He was fearful of Hezbollah.

10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant son was subjected to mocking and low level verbal harassment at school. The Tribunal also accepts that he was subjected to peer pressure to join Hezbollah, carry weapons or participate in armed conflict. The Tribunal appreciates that he had found these experiences annoying, upsetting and hurtful. However, he was not subjected to any other harm. He had faced no retaliation for refusing to go along with his peers’ wishes, he was not ‘forced’ to join Hezbollah, he was not ‘forced’ to change his religion. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant son’s past experiences amount to serious or significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that, if the applicant son were to experience similar treatment in Lebanon, this would amount to serious or significant harm. The country information before the Tribunal indicates that ‘Hezbollah does not ‘forcibly’ recruit its members’.[2]  The Tribunal is not satisfied that, if the applicant son were to return to Lebanon, he would be forcefully recruited by Hezbollah or any other group. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he would be forced to change his religion or to engage in armed conflict.

    [2]  IRB, n1, above.

11. In his statement, the applicant son claimed that his mother had received many threats to the effect that her children would be harmed if she did not speak the truth. The Tribunal has already found that Hezbollah do not have any ongoing adverse interest in the applicant or any intention to harm her. It follows that Hezbollah do not have any intention to harm the applicant’s children as a means of harming the applicant. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that the applicant son will face serious or significant harm at the hands of Hezbollah.

    The Applicant Daughter

12. In her written evidence, the applicant had claimed that the applicant daughter was ‘chased by her friends’, who were trying to convince her to wear the veil and ‘take religious lessons to learn Quran’. She refused because she believes in Christianity and she attended the church every Sunday in [town]. At the Departmental interview, the applicant stated that, sometimes, her daughter was asked why she was a Christian and they preached to her to accept the Islamic faith. In her oral evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant stated that her daughter’s classmates told her that she is a Christian Palestinian and that she has no protection. They told her that she eats pork and that she should cover her head, otherwise they could not be friends with her. They also forced her to attend religious classes at school. She was told that she lives amongst Muslims and she must learn about the religion. This made her daughter upset. The applicant talked to her children and taught them what is wrong and what is right.

13. In his written statement to the Tribunal, the applicant son stated that his sister was encouraged to wear the hijab and convert to Islam by her classmates. She was under ‘peer pressure’ and thought they were right. His mother talked to him and his sister and made them understand why they should not listen.

14. In her evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant daughter stated that her friends used to mock her for being a Christian Palestinian and encouraged her to wear the Hijab. They wanted her to convert and marry a Muslim man. She went home every day crying. She stated that she does not have a future in Lebanon and others might tell her to get married.

15. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant daughter was subjected to mocking and low level verbal harassment at school. The Tribunal also accepts that she had to attend religious classes at school and she was subjected to peer pressure to wear a veil, to convert to Islam and to marry a Muslim man. The Tribunal appreciates that she had found these experiences upsetting and hurtful, particularly as a child. However, she was not subjected to any other harm. She was not ‘forced’ to wear the veil or convert to Islam. There is no persuasive information before the Tribunal to suggest that Hezbollah members and supporters force female adherents of other religions to wear the veil, convert to Islam or marry Muslim men.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that, if the applicant daughter were to return to Lebanon, she would be forced to change her religion, wear the veil or marry a Muslim man. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that the applicant daughter will face serious or significant harm at the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    Palestinian Ethnicity

16. According to DFAT,

    In Lebanon, as in most Arab countries, citizenship of children derives from the father. Likewise, a wife may not usually pass her citizenship to her husbands. A Palestinian may marry a Lebanese national. If the Lebanese national is a man, any children will be granted Lebanese citizenship. A Palestinian wife may attain Lebanese citizenship. However, if a Lebanese national is a woman, she will retain her citizenship, but any children will be stateless. The marriages of non-ID Palestinians are not recognised by the state.[3]

    [3] DFAT, Thematic Report -Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon, 2 March 2015.

17. The Tribunal accepts that applicant’s husband was a Palestinian. Therefore, it accepts that the applicant son and the applicant daughter are considered Palestinian and stateless. As it was put to the applicant son and the applicant daughter at the hearing, statelessness alone is not sufficient to attract refugee status or complementary protection.

18. In his written statement, the applicant son indicated that he and his sister do not have a Lebanese ID and it will be very hard for them to cope in Lebanon.

19. The Tribunal accepts that as Palestinian refugees, the applicant son and the applicant daughter are unable to acquire Lebanese national identity cards. The documents submitted in support of their application for a protection visa, however, show that they are both registered with the Directorate of Political Affairs and Refugees (DPAR).[4] No evidence has been submitted to suggest that they are also registered with UNRWA. Nevertheless, according to the UNHCR, UNRWA started assisting this non-registered refugee population as of January 2004. Non-registered Palestinians are granted the same residency permits afforded to those who are registered with UNRWA; however, as in the case of the applicant son and the applicant daughter, they are issued a different travel document (Laissez Passer), valid for one year and renewable three times.

    [4] UNHCR, The Situation of Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon, February 2016,

20. The applicant has claimed that, if they were to return to Lebanon, they will be forced to live in Palestinian refugee camps, where her children have to carry weapons to protect themselves and they will be vulnerable as Christians. The country information before the Tribunal, however, does not support this claim. There is no persuasive information before the Tribunal to suggest that, as Palestinian refugees, the applicant son and the applicant daughter will be forced to live in camps. As reported by the UNHCR, according to UNRWA, Palestinian refugees registered with DPAR enjoy freedom of movement within the country.[5] DFAT has also stated that Palestinians may legally live anywhere in Lebanon if they can afford to pay rent and other fees.[6] The Tribunal, therefore, is not satisfied that the applicant’s children and, by extension, the applicant, will be forced to live in Palestinian refugee camps. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant son will be forced to become a ‘young soldier’, to carry weapons and fight Hezbollah. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant daughter will be forced to convert to Sunni Islam in order to get married. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants will be subjected to serious or significant harm for the reason of their religion or ethnicity in any Palestinian refugee camp or elsewhere in Lebanon.

    [5] Ibid.

    [6] DFAT, n3, above

21. More generally, in relation to the situation of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, the UNHCR has stated:

    Palestine refugees in Lebanon reportedly continue to face acute socioeconomic deprivation and legal barriers to their full enjoyment of a broad range of human rights. Palestine refugees in Lebanon are reported to have historically been marginalized and excluded from key aspects of social, political and economic life with no right to own immovable property; severely curtailed access to public services (other than those provided by UNRWA), such as health and education; and restrictions regarding specific professions and limited job opportunities.[7]

    [7] UNHCR, n4, above.

22. Similarly, DFAT has reported:

    Palestinians in Lebanon have restricted access to the job market, social services (including health) and education. As a result, the Palestinian community in Lebanon is marked by high poverty rates, and poor infrastructure and housing conditions… Palestinians in Lebanon are subject to a high level of official, if indirect, discrimination. While Lebanese law generally does not specifically target Palestinians, legislative restrictions prevent the Palestinian community from substantially bettering its position or prospects.[8]

    [8] DFAT, n3, above

23. With regard to access to employment, according to UNHCR, changes to Lebanese law in 2005 and 2010 gave Palestine refugees in Lebanon legal access to some formal employment in the private sector that had previously been limited to Lebanese nationals. Nevertheless, legal prohibitions reportedly persist on access for Palestine refugees to 36 liberal or syndicated professions, including in medicine, farming and fishery, and public transportation. In order to work, Palestine refugees in Lebanon are required to obtain an annual work permit, which involves a lengthy administrative process. Most Palestine refugees in Lebanon are reported to work in menial, low-paying jobs in the informal sector and they regularly receive a lower salary than Lebanese nationals for the same job.[9] According to DFAT,

    Of those Palestinians that actively seek work, the overall employment rate is 92 per cent. However, this high rate masks a prevalence of informal and/or low-paying jobs, a preponderance of short-term or seasonal jobs, and frequently poor work conditions.[10]

    [9] UNHCR, n4, above.

    [10] DFAT, n3, above.

1. With regard to other forms of discrimination, Palestinian refugees are effectively barred from owning, selling or bequeathing property; they have limited access to higher education due to their inability to afford the high costs and they do not have access to Lebanese public health services, relying mostly on UNRWA, non-profit organisations and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society for health services. UNRWA reportedly provides comprehensive primary health care, such as general medical checks, preventative maternal and child care, radiology and dental care, free of charge. Nevertheless, health services available to Palestine refugees in Lebanon are reported to be chronically underfunded and insufficient to cover existing and growing health needs.[11]

   [11] UNHCR, n4, above and DFAT, ibid.

2. The country information before the Tribunal clearly demonstrates that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon live in appalling circumstances. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant son and the applicant daughter will be subjected to discrimination in Lebanon for the reason of their Palestinian ethnicity. The Tribunal has no doubt that they will face hardship and many challenges upon their return to Lebanon. In taking evidence from both, the Tribunal found them to be highly intelligent, resilient and ambitious. Their record of success and academic achievement in Australia is testimony to their potential, hopes, aspirations and strong desire to remain in this country. The Tribunal understands their concerns and anxieties when confronted with the prospect of having to return to an uncertain future. Whilst sympathetic to their concerns for their prospects and future in Lebanon, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the discrimination they are likely to face amounts to serious harm or significant harm.

3. The applicant son has completed his secondary schooling in Australia and the Tribunal accepts that his goal is to complete his tertiary studies. Whilst the Tribunal also accepts that he will have limited access to higher education in Lebanon due to the associated financial costs for Palestinian refugees in general, the Tribunal does not consider this limitation to amount to serious harm, including denial of access to basic services, where such denial threatens his capacity to subsist.

4. The applicant daughter has completed year [number] in Australia and the Tribunal accepts that, like her brother, she would like to continue her education in Australia. The applicant daughter attended school in Lebanon before coming to Australia and the Tribunal Is not satisfied that she would be prevented from completing her schooling in Lebanon. As noted in relation to the applicant son, the Tribunal does not consider any limitations she may encounter in accessing tertiary education in Lebanon to amount to serious harm, including denial of access to basic services, where such denial threatens her capacity to subsist.

5. The Tribunal appreciates that the applicant son and the applicant daughter do not have the right to own property in Lebanon and that their access to health care is limited to what is offered by non-profit organisations, such as UNRWA. Again, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this discrimination is at a level that amounts to serious harm, including denial of access to basic services, where such denial threatens their capacity to subsist.

6. The Tribunal further appreciates that both the applicant son and the applicant daughter will have severely limited access to a number of liberal or syndicated professions, effectively forcing them to seek employment in the informal sector. This is clearly neither reasonable nor desirable. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the discrimination they are likely to face in accessing employment in Lebanon would result in significant economic hardship or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood, where such hardship or denial threatens their capacity to subsist.

7. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the discrimination the applicant son and the applicant daughter may be subjected to, either individually or cumulatively, in Lebanon amounts to serious harm for a Convention reason. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the discrimination the applicant son and the applicant daughter may be subjected to amounts to any form of significant harm as contemplated by s.36(2A). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant son and the applicant daughter face a real risk of being significantly harmed by the authorities, Hezbollah, any other groups or anyone else due to their race, religion, imputed political opinion or familial links. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant son and the applicant daughter will suffer significant harm arising from any limitations on access to services, restrictions on employment or economic conditions related to their ethnicity or ‘status’ in Lebanon.

8. The Tribunal has considered the psychological reports submitted in support of the application for review. Both reports were dated [in] June 2015. No further evidence or information was provided to the Tribunal in relation to the applicant son and the applicant daughter’s mental state at present or whether there had been any follow ups since June 2015. The applicants have made no specific claims for protection in relation to the state of their mental health and the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant son and the applicant daughter will face serious harm in Lebanon for a Convention reason as a result of their state of mental health.

9. Having regard to the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant son and the applicant daughter being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that they will be subjected to any form of discrimination or harm, including disability related discrimination, that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on them 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 they will suffer harm from the authorities that would involve the infliction of severe 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 they 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 they will suffer arbitrary deprivation of life or the death penalty. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant son and the applicant daughter being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that they will be subjected to significant harm.

10. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

    DECISION

11. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

    Shahyar Roushan
    Senior Member