1509131 (Refugee)

The applicant, who had previously applied for a protection visa, sought review of the delegate's decision to refuse his current application. The Tribunal was required to consider the application under the complementary protection criterion, as established by prior court decisions. The central issue was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Lebanon.

The applicant claimed to be in a same-sex relationship in Lebanon, a country where such relationships are prohibited by Islamic law and could lead to pressure, threats, and punishment from both parents and authorities. He asserted that his primary motivation for seeking protection in Australia was to live freely and peacefully with his partner, which he could not do in Lebanon. The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the credibility of these claims and determining if they met the threshold for complementary protection.

The Tribunal found that it was only able to consider the applicant's case under the complementary protection criterion. After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing the applicant would suffer significant harm upon removal to Lebanon. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, nor could he satisfy the criteria under subsections 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.