1506898 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Lebanese national before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant had previously been found not to be a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, but was able to apply for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) following the commencement of the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2011. The applicant's claims for complementary protection were based on fears of imprisonment and the death penalty in Lebanon, stemming from alleged involvement with Fatah al Islam, a conviction in absentia for terrorism offences, and subsequent unlawful imprisonment and torture.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Lebanon, thereby meeting the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act, and to assess the applicant's credibility in light of inconsistent evidence presented. The Tribunal was also mandated to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visa. The reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility, noting inconsistencies in his evidence. While acknowledging the applicant's past experiences, including imprisonment and torture, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the evidence did not establish substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Lebanon. The Tribunal's decision was informed by the policy guidelines and country information it was required to consider.