1614946 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming fear of harm upon return to Lebanon. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for complementary protection under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The decision was made by Senior Member Denis Dragovic of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm in Lebanon due to fear of Hezbollah and pro-Syrian forces, or due to the general economic conditions. The Tribunal was required to consider the definition of "significant harm" as set out in section 36(2A) of the Act, which is an exhaustive list. The Tribunal also had to determine if any risk faced by the applicant was general to the population and not faced by him personally, or if relocation within Lebanon would mitigate any such risk.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not demonstrated a fear of Hezbollah targeting him personally, noting that Hezbollah controls specific areas of Lebanon and allows non-Shi'a to worship freely. Country information indicated that Hezbollah engages in political partnerships with non-Shi'a communities, including Sunnis, and that the conflict in Syria, a stated reason for potential recruitment, was nearing an end. Regarding pro-Syrian forces, the Tribunal found that while indiscriminate violence occurred in Lebanon, the applicant had not shown a real risk of intentional harm as defined by the Act. Concerning economic conditions, the Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties in Lebanon but found that the applicant had family support and could find work, even if at a lower rate than desired, and therefore did not face a real risk of arbitrary deprivation of life due to an inability to subsist. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's separation from his Australian family, concluding it did not constitute significant harm under the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not face a real risk of significant harm in Lebanon, either individually or cumulatively, and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for complementary protection. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.