1512569 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Lebanese national. The applicant claimed he left Lebanon due to threats from ISIS, Nusra, and Hizbullah, asserting that his opposition to these extremist groups, as a moderate Sunni Muslim, would make him a target. He contended that Lebanese authorities were unable to provide protection due to the pervasive presence of these groups. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or if Australia had protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the statutory requirements for a protection visa, including the definition of a well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm. The court noted that a mere claim of fear is insufficient; the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements are met. The applicant's written claims were brief and lacked detail, and he failed to attend his departmental interview, which could have provided further information. The Tribunal applied the principles established in *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559, emphasizing that the applicant bears the onus of persuading the reviewing decision-maker that the statutory elements are made out.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were not sufficiently detailed to establish a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason or a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Lebanon. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, as he did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958*.