1516248 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Lebanese national, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse his second application for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa. This second application, lodged in March 2014, relied on amendments to the Act that introduced claims for 'complementary protection'. The delegate had refused the application in November 2015, considering both refugee and complementary protection criteria. The applicant then applied to the Tribunal for a review of this refusal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there were substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Lebanon. This required the Tribunal to assess the applicant's claims under both the refugee protection criterion (s.36(2)(a) of the Act) and the complementary protection criterion (s.36(2)(aa) of the Act), particularly in light of his mental health conditions and the availability of mental health services in Lebanon. A further issue arose regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review the applicant's refugee protection claims, given the history of previous applications and the introduction of new legislative provisions.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including medical reports concerning the applicant's mental health and his capacity to participate in proceedings, as well as country information regarding Lebanon. The Tribunal noted that while the delegate found the applicant's fear of harm based on religion or political opinion could amount to persecution, this fear was not considered well-founded in the applicant's circumstances. The delegate had also found that although mental health care in Lebanon was not as advanced as in Australia, services were available, and the applicant would be able to access them, thus not meeting the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal also addressed the jurisdictional question, acknowledging the applicant's submission that the 2014 application should be treated as a new and separate application requiring consideration of all requisite criteria, including both refugee and complementary protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa, concluding that there was no real risk of significant harm to the applicant if he were returned to Lebanon.