1704866 (Refugee)
[2019] AATA 4386
•8 April 2019
1704866 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 4386 (8 April 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1704866
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Lebanon
MEMBER:Sean Baker
DATE:8 April 2019
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
Statement made on 08 April 2019 at 2:32pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – Federal Circuit Court remittal – religion – Jehovah’s Witness – former Sunni Muslim – apostate – mental health issues – country information – degree of religious tolerance – wearing of the veil – sectarian violence – credibility issues – implausible claims – delay in attending a Kingdom Hall in Australia – decision under review affirmedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2CASES
Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
The applicants are nationals of Lebanon. [The first named applicant] claims to fear harm on return to that country because he converted to the Jehovah’s Witness (JW) faith and he fears harm from his family and others in society. [The second named applicant] fears harm to herself and her children because of her husband’s conversion and because she has followed him.
The Tribunal, differently constituted, refused the application. The applicants appealed to the Federal Circuit Court which remitted the application to the Tribunal on the basis that the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the applicants’ claims that they would suffer significant harm because of their religious conversion and former Sunni Muslim religious status was legally unreasonable. The Court held that on balance, the reasoning of the Tribunal, in rejecting the applicant’s claims that they feared significant harm arising from their religious conversion, was irrational and illogical. The use of phrases ‘genuine conversion’, ‘ostensible Jehovah’s Witness activities’ and ‘alleged Jehovah’s Witness religion’ served to obscure any finding that the applicants were persons of the Sunni Muslim religion. Consequently, the Tribunal made its ultimate finding on whether the applicants met s.36(2)(aa) because they were former Sunni Muslims without probative evidence.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 2 October and 8 November 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Mr A], [Mr B], [Mr C] and [Mr D]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
The issue in this case is whether any of the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason and, if not, whether there is a real risk any of them will suffer significant harm on return to Lebanon. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in r.1.12 of the Regulations to include a spouse (r.1.12(a)).
In assessing the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal notes that the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear, that the fear is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed. A fear of persecution is not “well-founded” if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for her or him. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169 70.)
In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the applicant's credibility and, in doing so, the Tribunal is aware of the need and importance of being sensitive to the difficulties asylum seekers often face. Accordingly, the Tribunal notes that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all of their claims.
On the other hand, as stated previously, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all allegations made by an applicant. In addition, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been established. Nor is the Tribunal obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant's country of nationality (See Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451, per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547).
Claims
Applicant one (or ‘the applicant’) comes from [Village 1], Akkar, Lebanon. He lived in [Village 2], Akkar. He worked as [Occupation 1] in Lebanon and Australia. Applicant one married applicant two [in] August 2007. Applicant three is their child.
Attached to his protection application was a statement:
In year of 2005 I was studying at "[Institution 1]" in Beirut.
I met one of the teachers, who was very respectful, and he used to be well dressed.
I used to always wish to meet someone like that. I started talking to myself about how I can get rid of the environment that I live in my village because they used to be very conservative with very long beard. They used to talk about killing, not accepting other religions and how to get rid of them.
I started thinking about getting closer to that lecturer. when I was trying to get closer he used to be afraid of me, I did not know the reason. One day, I set next to him and started talking to him until I got to the end and asked him about his religion, he tried to avoid to answer me but I repeated the question, he told me that he is a Jehovah's Witness and he asked me not to tell anyone about what happen between us. He started explaining to me that they are under threats of killing in Lebanon. He started talking to me about the Jehovah's Witness faith and what they are of the kindness, freedom and peace. Specially about the respect of other religion. He started to often talk to me.
After a while, I asked him to visit me at the village and he accepted. This is when I went to my father and told him that this lecturer is a Jehovah's Witness and I told him that he is very respectful person. As soon as I finished talking, I found al the family members looking at me with anger. My father started beating me very hard and I lost conscious. When I woke up, I found my father holding a gun and saying that he will kill me before someone hear this. I kept the faith for myself and I told my father that I will go away from Jehovah's Witness fearing for my safety. Then I told the lecturer about what happen with me and I said sorry about the visit and we decided to keep meeting secretly in the [coffee shop] and advised me to leave Lebanon or I will get killed.
I started thinking about getting away from all Lebanon, so I started learning the English language and lodged a Student visa application to Australia and came to Australia.
Applicant two and three did not initially submit their own claims for protection.
At interview with the delegate the applicant expanded on his claims and said that he had been attending [Kingdom Hall 1], that he had not attended meetings here in Australia earlier because he was getting his wife to accept his new religion, that his parents had found out about his conversion and had told his in-laws.
The delegate refused the application. The delegate did not accept that the applicant had been a genuine follower since 2005. The delegate found the applicant’s explanation of his meetings with his teacher and his telling of his father about the teacher dubious, finding the applicant’s evidence at the interview unpersuasive. The delegate was not satisfied that he was introduced to the JW faith by his teacher in Lebanon, nor that his father threatened to kill him when he told him about the teacher. The delegate did not accept the applicant’s explanation for why he did not attend a Kingdom Hall in Australia earlier. The delegate held that even if accepted that he was a genuine follower of JW faith, the delegate was not satisfied on the country information that the applicant would suffer persecution on return to Lebanon. The delegate accepted the applicant’s family may reject him but found that this did not constitute serious harm. The delegate found the delay in seeking protection significant.
The applicant’s then representative provided a copy of the decision record to the Tribunal. A USB which includes a video of the applicant giving a speech was provided to the previous tribunal. Copies of medical reports for the second named applicant’s medical records for her traffic accident were provided to the previous tribunal.
Before the first tribunal the applicant also claimed that whilst he was in Australia, a friend of his called [Mr E] had come to his house in Australia and seen a bible and asked the applicant if he was a Christian. Despite the applicant telling [Mr E] he was not, [Mr E] told everyone in the area where the applicant lived in Australia, that the applicant was a Christian, did not have a Koran in his house and no longer went to mosque. The applicant’s father found out and threatened the applicant.
The second named applicant claims to have also converted to JW and taken the veil off. The second named applicant said she had received threats.
The second named applicant was assaulted at [a] Shopping centre by several strangers. After this she saw the assailant and another person at [another shopping centre] but they left.
The applicant said his house and car had been vandalised.
The applicant said three sheikhs had come to their house and told them to return to Islam.
Before this tribunal, the representative provided a submission dated 26 September 2018 which sets out the claims of the applicants as follows:
·In around 2005 the applicant became interested in JW, being introduced to it by his university lecturer [Mr E] [Mr F];
·The applicant wished to invite [Mr F] to his home, but this led to conflict with his father. Fearing for his safety the applicant left Lebanon for Australia, arriving in 2007. Because the primary aim was to leave quickly, he came on a student visa rather than a humanitarian visa;
·He returned to Lebanon in 2008 to marry his wife, having told his father in a ruse that he was no longer interested in JW. As her family were committed Muslims he did not confide to her his JW faith.
·They returned to Australia and over time the applicant revealed to his wife his interest in JW;
·After finding an Arabic speaking congregation, the applicant began to engage more actively;
·However, the applicant and his wife have been harassed and assaulted in Australia by people he suspects wish to cause them harm because of his conversion.
Attached was a statement from the applicant which also explained that he feared harm from his father and the country generally if returned to Lebanon. He says his father has beaten him for being a JW and also stopped financially supporting the applicant when he found out the applicant had become more active with JW. He explains that [Mr F] has now died. When the applicant arrived in Australia his English was ok but he did not think it was good enough to understand English language JW. This is one of the reasons he did not immediately become involved in JW. From 2012 he began to go regularly. He also didn’t want to cause problems with his wife’s parents. He says after he began going regularly he then had problems with his local Arabic community of his wife being punched twice, being confronted by three Sheikhs at his house and his car and house being vandalised. Many people in his family in Australia know that he has been involved in JW activities here. Since his last Tribunal hearing he has continued with his JW activities in Australia. He has regularly been attending the Kingdom Hall in [Suburb 1]. As you are expected to dress in their best clothes, he leaves house on a Sunday in his casual clothes so people in his neighbourhood do not suspect, and then changes to his good clothes when he arrives at the Kingdom Hall. Because JW believe in the worship of God’s Kingdom, they do not vote in elections or otherwise interact with worldly governments, and so it has been difficult to get fellow worshippers to testify for him. He has five good friends who he has met through JW. The first four do not want their names written down but the applicant can tell the Tribunal at the hearing. The fifth is [Mr C]. When doorknocking in [Suburb 2] some JW mentioned the applicant as a good man and a JW. The applicant is not yet baptised, he needs to complete more study. Despite this he is committed and has tried to spread the word, he spoke to [Mr B] and [Mr A] about JW. He explains that [Mr E] who told everyone the applicant was a Christian is from the same village in Akkar and is no longer the applicant’s friend.
Also attached was a statutory declaration from [Mr A], who says that the applicant mentioned he was a JW and asked if [Mr A] would like to find out more, which he politely declined. An attached statutory declaration from [Mr B] says that in around 2013 the applicant tried to convert him to JW but [Mr B] said he was not interested.
Attached are also medical records in relation to the applicant’s medical conditions including hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and sleep-disordered breathing/apnoea and mentions his immigration status as a stressor.
At the first hearing before me the applicant provided a copy of a report by [Mr D] who was previously a registered psychologist and is a psychotherapist and counsellor. This report sets out that he has been seeing the applicant since February 2008 but has not disclosed this as the applicant was ashamed of seeking counselling. The report reiterates the applicant’s claims. In [Mr D’s] view, the applicant is experiencing PTSD, Major Depression with Anxiety, Adjustment Disorder and Sleep Deprivation that fit the DSM criteria (and has included his diagnosis and testing). In his view the applicant is an emotional wreck and the writer asks that the applicant and his family be granted visas to stay in Australia.
After the second hearing, the applicant’s representative provided a submission dated 30 November 2018. In this submission, the representative addresses issues raised at the hearings. Also included are a number of email documents in Arabic which have been translated into English, a statutory declaration from a family friend whose identity the applicant requested be kept confidential and two Australian newspaper articles.
Mental health of the applicant
I have had regard to the report dated 28 September 2018 and witness evidence from [Mr D].
The report indicates that the applicant has been in therapy with [Mr D] since February 2008, and that [Mr D] has assessed and evaluated the applicant as meeting the criteria for PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder with Anxiety, Sleep disturbance and chronic adjustment disorder. [Mr D] notes that the applicant has been consistent in providing his history throughout the sessions over 13 years. [Mr D] reports that the applicant experiences social withdrawal, no social skills, struggling with daily living, experiences difficulties in making decisions, concentrating and focusing on detail and difficulties sleeping.
At hearing [Mr D] reiterated the main points of his report. He emphasised that this was an objective report. [Mr D] appeared to believe that the assaults on the applicant’s wife were connected to the threats from the applicant’s family in Lebanon somehow. He said that the applicant has been abused in Australia because of his JW faith. [Mr D] said that he was treating the applicant with hypnosis, but that the applicant would not be aware he is being hypnotised, and he was not doing Cognitive Behavioural Therapy because it is only ‘for highly intelligent people’. He said he was not a psychiatrist or doctor.
I asked if there could be other reasons for the applicant developing the diagnosed disorders. [Mr D] said that he had done tests to measure the disorders. I noted that this did not necessarily mean the disorders were linked to the claimed events. [Mr D] said that the symptoms were consistent with the reported experiences, to make it objective he had administered the tests to the applicant. He said if the applicant returned to Lebanon he would have family issues, the family issues in Australia are mild compared to what the applicant would experience in Lebanon, and the applicant’s father’s behaviour had remained consistent throughout the sessions that should the applicant return he will be killed, no mincing with the words.
The report was provided only at the hearing at which [Mr D] appeared.
I note that [Mr D] has indicated that he is no longer a practicing psychologist. At the hearing he clarified that this was for health reasons, and that he was a practicing clinical psychotherapist, counsellor and hypnotherapist. His report notes that he holds ‘non-practicing registration as a psychologist with AHPRA.’
As such, at its highest I can consider his evidence and the report as a clinical psychotherapist, counsellor and hypnotherapist, but not as a currently practicing psychologist.
The report diagnoses the applicant with a number of clinical disorders, as above, which at hearing [Mr D] said were objectively demonstrated by the testing he had provided to the applicant. The appendix contains results of the testing, but crucially does not indicate when the testing took place – this appears fundamental to the conclusions that [Mr D] draws, yet he has not provided any temporal context to the testing. He does state in the appendix that these results have lasted ‘more than 13 years’. This is a concerning statement because, at the time of authoring the report, he had only been seeing the applicant for ten years and some months and this appears either a concerning lack of precision where he claims objectivity, or an attempt to overstate the period he has been seeing the applicant. He does not explain if this was one test recently, or a number of tests over the years. The report also does not explain on what basis [Mr D], no longer a registered psychologist since 2015, was able to administer the testing as a non-practicing psychologist.
The body of the report also restates that he has seen the applicant for 13 years, and that the applicant has been consistent in his claims over this time. My concern is that the writer has mischaracterised the time he has seen the applicant (it having only been ten years and some months at the time of writing), and does not identify with specificity when the disclosure of his claims occurred. Of more concern is the extremely uncritical and sympathetic manner in which [Mr D] has reported the applicant’s claims – not as claims, but as fact. Whilst I appreciate that counsellors are there to listen and to counsel rather than challenge their clients, this report represents one of the more extreme iterations of uncritical acceptance of an applicant’s claims that I have seen.
I turn now to consider [Mr D’s] evidence at the hearing. He appeared to believe his evidence. However, it appeared from my questioning of him about any alternative factors or events that may have led to the diagnosis that [Mr D] has uncritically accepted the claims of the applicant and was forcefully of the opinion that only that history could explain his diagnosis.
Having considered his evidence and the report, I continue to have concerns about the information [Mr D] has provided. After reading the report and considering the evidence he gave me I find I can place no weight in establishing the applicant’s claims. Whilst I appreciate that [Mr D] says the applicant has been consistent over many years, he has not provided detail about when the disclosures occurred precisely, and indeed there is a lack of precision in the report overall. The report also lacks key information such as when the applicant disclosed the claimed attack on him by his father and when he disclosed that he was attacked or was interested in JW. The history is presented uncritically as an accepted narrative and has no rigour about when these matters were disclosed to [Mr D]. I consider that these matters are critical to the creation of a report about which I could place weight and rely upon.
Therefore, I accept that the applicant has been in counselling with [Mr D] since 2008, and that at some point in this period he was tested and has been assessed at some point in time with the current diagnoses. I am willing to accept that the applicant currently suffers the symptoms indicated which form [Mr D’s] diagnosis, being that the applicant suffers symptoms consistent with PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder with Anxiety, Sleep disturbance and chronic adjustment disorder. On being made aware of the report of [Mr D], I dealt with the applicant as a vulnerable witness, including offering breaks, and the opportunity for a further hearing to address issues raised in the first hearing.
I have taken into account the diagnosis of the applicant in assessing his credibility, and also in considering his claims to fear harm or that he will be significantly harmed on return to Lebanon.
However, I place no weight on the report or evidence of [Mr D] in establishing the applicant’s claims or that his claims are the reason for the diagnoses.
Consideration of claims
The September 2018 submission asserts that the applicant will be harmed either because he is a JW, because he would be perceived as a JW (even if he is not) and/or because he has converted from Sunni Islam/is or would be considered an apostate. He fears his father, his family, and his in-laws may kill or harm him, and may take his son from him.
However, for the reasons below I find the applicant’s claims, in particular about what happened to him in Lebanon, to be far-fetched and implausible.
The visit
The applicant’s claims revolve around his claimed friendship with a fellow JW, [Mr F] who was a lecturer at [Institution 1]. He claimed that he got to know [Mr F], despite [Mr F] being, he says, afraid of him, and with some reluctance after a time, [Mr F] spoke to him of JW but asked the applicant not to tell anyone about what happened between them. [Mr F] explained to the applicant that JW are under threats of killing in Lebanon. After some time the applicant wanted to invite [Mr F] to his family village and [Mr F] agreed, but when the applicant told his family that the visitor was a JW, the family looked at him with anger and his father beat him until he was unconscious.
At the hearing I asked the applicant about this series of events. He said that [Mr F] had not wanted to answer the applicant’s questions about his religion but had eventually told him he was a JW, but that this was confidential, the religion he followed was entirely forbidden in Lebanon and asked the applicant please tell no one. It is part of our religion to spread it between people but because of the pressure, it is rather illegal to do such things, and we are not that popular in Lebanon. The applicant said because he admired his teacher, he found his belief acceptable and when he got back to his village he told his father the teacher wanted to visit him. He said it was part of their religion that they have to know the religion of the visitor beforehand and so when his father asked who is this person the applicant didn’t actually pay attention enough and found himself saying this person belongs to JW.
I asked, had [Mr F] not told the applicant not to tell anyone. The applicant said he had, but he, the applicant, had forgotten. I noted I did not understand why the applicant would say this to his father, when [Mr F] had said to keep it a secret and that JW was entirely forbidden in Lebanon. The applicant said he thought this secret was not going to make a huge effect on his father as they live in a village. I noted that country information indicated that the confessional system in Lebanon was highly important to politics and social life as well as religious life so I had trouble reconciling his claims that [Mr F] said it was entirely forbidden and to keep his faith secret but that the applicant had forgot or he thought it would not make a huge effect on his father. He said it was tradition that if a person is from a different religion, he should inform his father that this person is Christian so they can bring alcohol to drink. I asked why he had not then said that [Mr F] was a Christian. He said it was part of his nature to speak the truth. I asked if saying [Mr F] was a Christian would have been untruthful and the applicant said his father has knowledge, he has great experience in life, he knows everybody. At that stage in his life the applicant did not know the difference between being a JW and a Christian person. The moment he finished saying to his father that [Mr F] is a JW, the applicant received a huge punch on his head from his father.
The applicant said he became unconscious and when he woke up there was a gun pointed at his head from his father. His father told him to stop studying in Beirut, no more relationship with this person and refused the visit. He told [Mr F] what had happened and [Mr F] gave him some books about JW and told him to go and study in another country.
I asked why his father would have hit him. The applicant said his father knows all the sects in Lebanon and JW are not one of them and are forbidden to enter the army and are not very popular in Lebanon. He said in his father’s book they were wrong. I asked if at that time the applicant was JW. He said not at that time. I asked why then his father would hit him, it didn’t seem to make sense if the applicant was not JW. He said his father saw him talking very excitedly about this teacher, he read between the lines. I noted this might be considered an implausible reaction, that if his father disagreed with JW he might be angry and upset and forbid the person, but I was not sure the applicant had explained why his father would assault him when he had not told his father he was JW, but only wished to have his teacher, who was JW, visit. The applicant said that in Lebanon JW are associated with Zionism and believed to support Israel, and are enemies of the state, and since his father is a military man that is very sensitive information for him so he took a harsh reaction.
I note that the delegate also had concerns with the claims of the applicant in relation to this sequence of events.
In the 30 November submission it is submitted that the applicant was in the habit of being truthful and did not think it would be an issue as his father, an army officer, had welcomed non-Muslims to his home on previous occasions, was retired and lived in a village.
As I explained to the applicant several times, the sequence of events he describes appears to me to be highly doubtful. The applicant claims that [Mr F] very explicitly told him to keep the information that he was JW secret. When asked why he had then told his father he said that he forgot, then that he did not think it would be that significant to tell his father, and then that it was tradition to tell the family what religion a visitor was. I do not accept any of these explanations. The applicant claims that he greatly respected [Mr F], indeed, that this respect and their friendship is a large part of why he became interested in JW. He claims that [Mr F] was evasive and the applicant had to be persistent to learn of [Mr F]’s faith and that on telling the applicant, [Mr F] made him promise not to tell anyone. In this context, the applicant has not credibly explained why he would have told his father that [Mr F] was a JW.
The applicant claims he was then attacked by his father. He was clear that at this point he himself was not JW, but that on telling his father that [Mr F] was a JW, his father punched him and he became unconscious, when he woke up his father was threatening him with a gun. Whilst I appreciate that the applicant cannot tell me what his father was thinking, his explanations for why his father would have been so enraged that the applicant’s intended guest to their house was a JW do not appear to me plausible. As I explained to him, if his father indeed was angry or unhappy at JW because they are not one of the recognised sects, are not allowed to serve in the army and are not very popular, and are associated with Zionism and support for Israel which upset his father as a retired military man, it would be plausible for his father to be upset, to forbid the visit of [Mr F] to their home, but I found it very odd that his father would attack his son who was not professing that he was JW. He said his father saw him talking excitedly about the teacher and read between the lines. I do not believe that this takes the applicant’s explanation any further. I find the claimed reaction by his father to be implausible, particularly when taken with the claim that the applicant told his father [Mr F] was a JW despite [Mr F] telling the applicant to keep it a secret. I find the sequence of events, in detail and overall, to be so highly implausible that, even after having considered his explanations, and taken with my other credibility concerns expressed below, I do not accept that these events occurred as claimed.
Delay in attending a Kingdom Hall
The applicant claims he came to Australia in July 2007 and studied JW by himself and read some books. He said in 2007 he was very much a believer in JW teachings. He said that he had been told that he could practice his religion freely if he left Lebanon and studied in another country. He showed me a pamphlet at the hearing that he said he had brought from Lebanon to Australia. He confirmed that he first attended a Kingdom Hall in Australia in 2012, about six months before the interview with the delegate which took place on 11 October 2012.
The applicant has given a variety of explanations for not attending Kingdom Hall or JW meetings earlier than 2012, including that his English was not good enough, that he was afraid, that he did not have transport, that he needed to act discreetly because family members in Australia and community members would report on him to his father, and that the lack of financial support from his father put him in stress. I do not find any of the applicant’s explanations compelling – he claims to have travelled to Australia, at the suggestion of [Mr F], to live in freedom and practice JW or at least to explore that interest. Yet he does not appear to have taken steps to do so until shortly before his interview with the delegate.
I do not accept the claim that the applicant being fearful and lacking in English can explain the very long delay before he began practicing, because he claims to have travelled to Australia to practice or explore his interest in JW, and because his English was, I consider, sufficient for him to have made inquiries about Arabic JW services prior to 2012. Even if he had been apprehensive, this was the reason, he claims, for his travel to Australia, and it therefore appears very odd that he did not act on it for many, many years. I do not accept the claim that he did not attend earlier because he was convincing his wife. Even if this was the case – and the applicant has not clearly explained why him needing to convince her meant he could not, as opposed to them both, attend a Kingdom Hall – it does not explain why he did not explore JW prior to getting married to her, between July 2007 and July 2008.
I have carefully considered if the applicant’s mental health could have played a part in the delay in attending a Kingdom Hall or taking any other active steps to seek out JW before 2012, or whether it could account for the variations in his explanations here. Even if this was a factor, I do not accept that this, either wholly or in conjunction with his other explanations, addresses the fundamental concern here – having said that he travelled to Australia to live in freedom and practice JW or explore it, he then took no demonstrable steps to do so for many, many years. I do not accept that his mental health explains this. Even if his mental health has led him to make a variety of claims about this concern, this does not address the difficulty that I do not find any of these explanations plausible or credible.
This leads me to have concerns that the applicant is being honest about the reasons he did not attend a Kingdom Hall, or engage in any other attempts to explore JW outside, he says, studying at home and reading books for five years in Australia.
Threats by [Mr E] and disownment by his father
Related to this issue are my concerns with events that the applicant claims took place during this period of time, from his arrival in July 2007 until he says he visited a Kingdom Hall for the first time around April 2012. The applicant has said that his father and family in Lebanon discovered he was a JW in around 2009 because a person called [Mr E] came to his house and saw a book in his house and then told everyone that the applicant was JW. There are a number of difficulties with this claim.
The applicant has consistently said that he did not attend a Kingdom Hall until 2012, nor has he claimed to have done any other activities in this time which may have identified him as JW except study books and other literature about JW himself.
Despite this he claims a sequence of events led to his father and family becoming aware of his JW faith, and to his father disowning the applicant and putting a bounty on his head.
This sequence of events, for the following reasons, is implausible.
The applicant says that in 2009 [Mr E], a friend, came to his house and saw a book on the applicant’s dining table which then led [Mr E] to spread the news that the applicant was JW.
I asked the applicant about this incident. I asked if the applicant was a JW at this time. He did not answer directly but said that in 2009 his English was very limited but he did do some study by himself, there were some books he used to read.
I asked when this had happened and the applicant said it was in 2009, he could not remember exactly, but after his wife had given birth.
When I queried which book it was that [Mr E] had seen the applicant showed me what he said was the book he was referring to, in Arabic, and he said it was the Holy Book. I noted that it appeared to be a copy of the New Testament. He said it was a Holy Book which he translated from Arabic as ‘Interpreting for the New Word.’ I asked how [Mr E] would know this was a JW book and noted that it seemed a big leap from seeing this book to the applicant being said to be a JW. The applicant responded that [Mr E] knew the book is not for Muslims. He said that when [Mr E] spread the news in the village, the applicant’s father straight away knew that this book belongs to JW. I asked if the book was what I called the New Testament and the applicant agreed. I noted that many sects used the New Testament, not just JW. The applicant disagreed. He said this book was specifically for JW. I noted that even if that was true, how would [Mr E] know that; the applicant explained that [Mr E] knew this book was not for Muslims, and, the applicant added, [Mr E] would have noticed the applicant had not been going to mosque. Then [Mr E] spoke to the community and they contacted the applicant’s father and he took the decision that the applicant had become a JW. His father then sent him verbal messages through people in Lebanon that he was no longer his son and should not expect any help from him from then on, and his father also threatened to kill him. The applicant added, not only that, but his father took the applicant’s inheritance and put it aside for anyone who would harm or kill the applicant so that his father could pay this person the money.
I asked the applicant if he was saying that his father had put a bounty on his head and he said that was right. He said his father had also then gone to his in-laws (the parents of applicant two) and told them that she should divorce and disown his son.
The applicant also said that his brother, [Mr G], had come to Australia, he thought on a student visa as well, but he had not seen his brother since 2009 for the same reason, his brother did not approach him because he knew the applicant was a JW. He said his brother found out from [Mr E].
The applicant was unconvincing in explaining how this sequence of events occurred. He appeared to suggest at the outset that [Mr E] had been aware that this book was for JW, but then shifted his evidence to explain that [Mr E] told others who told his father, and it was his father who made the connection. He also struggled to explain why his father decided the applicant was JW – he was emphatic that the only information his father had about his JW was that the applicant had asked to bring his teacher to visit the family home and had revealed he was JW, and then that members of the community had told him that [Mr E] had told them that the applicant had a book that was not for Muslims in his house and that there were rumours that the applicant was not attending mosque. I asked if his father had called the applicant to ask him if he was JW. The applicant said his father had not, he had changed his phone number so his father could not contact him and his father was aware of this.
I have carefully considered the evidence of the applicant but I find this sequence of events so implausible as to not be credible. He was not able to explain why these events occurred as they did, and nor do I accept them as credible –I do not accept that, even if [Mr E] thought it worthwhile to mention that the applicant had a book that was not for Muslims in his house, that this would be spoken of in the community, and that, most improbable of all, that this would lead to the applicant’s father making the connection with his son’s request, seven years prior, to have a visitor who he revealed to be JW, without verifying this with the applicant or anyone else, to accept that rumours his son was not attending mosque (but was not at this time attending a Kingdom Hall), and then to come to the view that the applicant was or that his father imputed to him JW faith, and to have then disowned the applicant and put a bounty on the applicant’s head. The way the applicant has expanded on this sequence of events appears to me to indicate that he has fabricated the book and his friend seeing this as being the point at which he has revealed he was JW to his family, and has then had to fill in the sequence of events as best he can. I do not accept that these claims are plausible or credible and they lead me to have further concerns with the general credibility of the applicant. These concerns also lead me to have very significant doubts about whether the applicant had any connection or even awareness of JW prior to his attending a Kingdom Hall in 2012. I have considered his mental health when making these findings but I do not accept that the variation in his evidence, nor the implausible sequence of events he has explained, are clarified or explained by his mental health issues.
Country information
In this case, the applicant asks me to accept that JW are persecuted in Lebanon. Indeed, his claims rely on this to support his proposition that his father reacted so violently to even the mention that his would be visitor was JW.
After reviewing the country information, and giving the applicant and his representatives many opportunities to provide specific country information, I find that this claim is simply not supported by the evidence. I have considered all of the country information about the situation for JW in Lebanon that I have been able to locate and that has been provided by the applicant.
This leads to further doubts with the applicant’s claims, specifically, that his father hit or beat him when he said that his teacher was JW, or that his father or anyone else disowned him, threatened him and put a bounty on his head when he found out or decided the applicant was JW.
Conclusions on credibility
The applicant has provided evidence which is implausible and which, for the reasons above, I have not believed. Whilst it is the case that applicants may still be believed where they have embroidered aspects of their claims, the unbelievable aspects of the claims here are so integral to the fabric of his claims that they, I find, irreparably damage the whole of the claims. I find that the applicant has deliberately set out to provide a narrative to support his claims that he will be harmed as a JW on return to Lebanon, and has manufactured the conflict with his father in 2005, and his father’s threats in 2009, as well as the claimed threats of the community and others, in a bid to strengthen his claims.
On the basis of my findings above, I find that the applicant had no interest or even awareness of JW prior to 2012. Given his implausible and unbelievable claims about the attack on him by his father in 2005, I do not accept that this occurred, and I consider that the applicant has invented [Mr F] as a character in this story. Whilst the applicant has been able to show me pamphlets and books in Arabic which he claims are JW materials (and I am willing to accept that they are), he has not been able to establish that he had these prior to 2012 when, I find, he became aware of and started attending Kingdom Hall. For these reasons, I also do not believe that [Mr E] came to the applicant’s house in 2009, saw a copy of a book, which led to the community telling his father who then disowned the applicant, threatened him and put a bounty on his head.
In making these findings I have carefully considered the corroborative evidence of the applicant’s wife, applicant two, and of [Mr D]. The evidence of [the second named applicant] was brief and did not add more to the applicant’s claims. Given she is also an applicant for protection, I found her evidence about her husband’s faith to be self-serving and I give her evidence little weight in establishing the veracity of her husband’s claims. As discussed above, I also give the evidence of [Mr D], to the extent that it was intended to support the claims of the applicant about events in Lebanon prior to [Mr D] knowing the applicant, no weight. Ultimately, their evidence, with the weighting I have given it, does not displace the profound concerns I have with the evidence of the applicant, which I disbelieve not purely or even principally for reasons of his credibility, but because of what I find to be the inherent contradictions and implausibilities of his claims.
I have also carefully considered the evidence of [Mr A], [Mr B], [Mr C] and [Mr H], and the evidence of the applicant’s engagement with JW since 2012, including their evidence, and the USB of the applicant giving a speech. I found these three witnesses to be credible – they did not provide evidence outside what they were aware of and were able to describe with precision their interactions with the applicant. [Mr A]’s statement and his evidence at hearing was that in 2015 the applicant asked him whether he wished to learn more about JW and he politely declined. He said in his mind there is no doubt the applicant is JW. [Mr B]’s evidence was that he had known the applicant since 2009, that in around 2013 the applicant revealed he was JW to [Mr B] and tried to convert him – [Mr B] said he was not interested.
[Mr C] said that the applicant was JW. I asked since when the applicant had been a JW and [Mr C] said that they had started together since 2012. He said the applicant had had some rough idea about JW before this. He said he assumed the applicant had had difficulties because of his religion because the applicant came from a Muslim background. He said he had heard of people being harmed for apostasy in Lebanon but he was unable to give details. He said he did not know the applicant’s family. [Mr H] explained that he was an Elder of the JW and a [Occupation 2] and [Occupation 3]. He said that he had met the applicant at Kingdom Hall in around 2012. He said that around 2014 the applicant had not been comfortable to keep coming and they had not seen him for a while but about 3 months before the hearing the applicant called him and the applicant has been attending regularly twice weekly, has started to bring his son and mix with them socially. He said the applicant had not been baptised as he needed to go from door to door to qualify and had not reached that stage. [Mr H] said the applicant claims he is interested in learning the truth, but they cannot comment on motives. [Mr H] explained that he had lived in a region not far from where the applicant comes from. He said that the period in which the applicant did not attend could have been because the applicant was afraid and they explained that Australia was not like Lebanon. When asked to elaborate he said that the applicant may now be labelled an apostate in Lebanon for his actual or imputed JW faith, and he did not know if the applicant would be in danger.
The evidence of these witnesses supports a finding that the applicant has been aware of and engaged with JW only since 2012. Whilst I have some doubts about whether the applicant has engaged in this conduct for the sole purpose of strengthening his protection claims, I cannot make this finding with confidence given the evidence of these witnesses that the applicant, since 2012, has engaged with them about JW. I therefore accept that since 2012, the applicant has practiced JW to some extent. He himself has said that he is not yet baptised into the JW faith, and that he has not engaged in proselytising.
I have also carefully considered the statutory declaration from the family friend whom the applicant does not want named. This statutory declaration was provided only after two hearings by the Tribunal. The statutory declaration states that the declarant visited Lebanon in September 2014 and overheard the applicant’s immediate family members and 2 religious leaders discussing the applicant and his family’s desertion of their religion and they threatened to slaughter the applicant, stone applicant two and beat his children if they returned to Lebanese soil. It states that the applicant is hated in his community and everyone speaks about the shameful act he has done, the gossip is in both Lebanon and Australia, the writer has not disclosed this to the applicants previously as they thought they were safe in Australia and cannot give this information to the applicant directly as they fear he will have suicidal ideations. The declarant says they believe these threats are genuine and that many crimes in Lebanon go unreported. I have a number of concerns with this document including the late provision, the brevity of the declaration, why the discussion would have been occurring in the village in 2014 when the applicant claimed he had not spoken to his family since the events of 2009, and that the discussion of these threats appears greatly at odds with the country information I have referenced. On this basis I give this statutory declaration no weight in establishing or buttressing his claims which I have found to be neither credible nor plausible. Nor do I accept that these claims represent the true situation for the applicant on return as someone who has changed his faith/will practice JW or may be considered an apostate.
I have also considered the claims of the second applicant. Her evidence, as above, was not convincing in relation to the faith of her husband prior to 2012. Nor did she convince me that she is in any sense an active worshipper or practitioner of JW – she said she has not attended Kingdom Hall and does not engage with the JW community. I am willing to accept that, following her husband’s faith, she has some interest in JW. I also am willing to accept, despite her having her veil on for her recent driving licence, that she has removed the veil whilst in Australia. I took evidence from her about the attack she suffered in Australia at a shopping centre in 2013. Whilst at times both she and her husband have tried to intimate that this is somehow connected to their claims, she did not claim this at the hearing before me. She said that these people were Westerners, not Arabic, and spoke to her in English so she did not understand what they said. I do not accept, on her evidence, that this was anything more than a random criminal act, and I do not accept that it has any connection to the claims of the applicants.
On the basis of my credibility findings, I find that:
·The applicant did not have a teacher called [Mr F] who was JW, did not invite this person to his family home in 2005 and when he told his father of the potential visitor’s JW faith, his father reacted angrily and punched or beat the applicant or threatened him with a gun. The applicant did not have an interest in or wish to practice JW prior to 2012. He did not travel to Australia to learn more about or practice JW freely. The applicant did not cut short his study in Lebanon because his parents were concerned about his teacher.
·The applicant did not study or learn about JW at any time prior to 2012.
·The applicant did not have to convince his wife that he was not JW before she would agree to come to Australia.
·[Mr E] did not come to the applicant’s house, see a book that was the New Testament or any other book in 2009 or at any time. Nor did [Mr E] then tell the Australian-Lebanese community that the applicant was a JW, Christian or non-practicing Muslim, which was then conveyed to the applicant’s father.
·The applicant’s father did not decide or speculate in 2009 or at any other time that the applicant was JW, disown the applicant, threaten him, or place a bounty on the applicant’s head. I do not accept that his father or family have or will bribe anyone to harm the applicant. Given my findings above, I do not accept that the applicant’s parents or father stopped supporting him whilst he was in Australia. I do not accept that his father has cut off his inheritance.
·I do not accept that the applicant’s family wish to harm him as a ‘personal case’ because they are ashamed or upset at him because he is JW or because he has left his religion or his family for any other reason.
·I do not accept that the applicants’ house and car have been graffitied – he has provided no independent evidence of this.
·I do not accept that three Sheikhs, unknown to the applicants, came to their house to convince them to return to Islam or to stop practicing JW or to threaten them or for any other reason. On the basis of my credibility findings, I find that this incident has been invented by the applicant.
·I do not accept that the applicant’s father, brother in Australia, family, local community, the Lebanese-Australian community, or the Lebanese community in Lebanon or anyone else has threatened any of the applicants for reasons of their actual or imputed JW faith, apostasy or for any other reason.
·I do not accept that applicant one’s father went to the parents of applicant two and told them applicant two should divorce and disown applicant one because he was JW or for any other reason. Given this, I also do not accept that applicant two’s family are angry or unhappy or have threatened applicant two because she did not do these things.
·I do not accept that the applicants moved to [Suburb 3] to avoid the Lebanese-Australian community or for any reason connected with their claims.
·I accept that applicant two was attacked in a [shopping centre] in 2013 by two people who, she said, were Westerners, not Arabic, and spoke to her in English, and that she reported this to the police. I accept that shortly after this she saw these same people in another shopping centre but that they left. I do not accept that these events have any connection to the claims of the applicants.
·I accept that the applicant has attended counselling with [Mr D] since 2008, but I do not accept this has been for the reasons he claims, or connected to his claims in any way.
·I accept that since 2012 applicant one has attended Kingdom Halls and engaged in other JW practices. On his evidence he has not been baptised, nor has he proselytised except to people known to him, including [Mr A].
·I accept that applicant one suffers from hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and sleep-disordered breathing/apnoea.
·I accept that applicant two was involved in a traffic accident, but I do not accept this has any connection to their claims.
·Despite some doubts given her driving licence photograph, I am willing to accept that applicant two removed her veil in 2013 and does not wish to wear it.
·I accept that applicant two has some interest in JW because her husband does, but on her evidence, that she has not visited a Kingdom Hall or engaged in any JW activities. Given my findings above, I do not accept that this has led to any difficulties with her family.
Country information
At hearing I summarised the below information from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the applicants:
RELIGION
For mainstream religious and social groups in Lebanon, the political and legal system is generally free from religious discrimination. The Lebanese Constitution guarantees freedom of religious practice and association. Lebanon’s political structure (as set out in the Taef Accord) officially recognises eighteen religious sects, including four Muslim sects, 12 Christian sects, Druze and Judaism.
Lebanon’s political system puts religious association at the heart of Lebanon’s official practice. The confessional structure is designed to support diverse political representation, rather than to exclude certain groups in a discriminatory manner. Lebanon’s confessional political system, however, under which positions are allocated to religious sects (see Political System), arguably limits rights to political representation and public sector employment.
The 18 religious communities officially recognised in Lebanon continue to be able to apply their own laws and maintain their own judicial systems to deal with matters relating to personal status, marriage, divorce and other family issues. The religious court system pertains to the main religions of Christianity and Islam. Not all of the 18 recognised denominations have courts; some resort to out-of-court settlements facilitated by religious figures.
Lebanon is a diverse country with a tradition of religious pluralism and a high degree of religious tolerance. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion stated in 2015 that situation between religious groups within Lebanon is largely amicable, that individuals were generally able to practise their religion freely and that there was no religious persecution. The Special Rapporteur further noted that Lebanon has successfully kept society united across religious boundaries, and built resilience in the face of religious extremism. DFAT agrees with these views.
In general, Lebanon adopts a tolerant attitude towards conversions between faiths. The Lebanese Constitution protects ‘absolute freedom of conscience’ and religious conversion is legal and recognised in Lebanon. Conversion has legal effect, including in documentation issued by Lebanese authorities. DFAT is not aware of any evidence that Lebanese authorities monitor or harass religious converts, though converts may experience some societal discrimination
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion reported to the Human Rights Council in 2015 that inter-faith marriages between Muslims and Christians are widespread. However, in-country contacts suggest that inter-faith or inter-confessional relationships and marriages can attract significant societal and official discrimination and, in some circumstances, violence. Religious groups maintain their own judicial systems to deal with matters relating to personal status, including marriage, and in-country contacts report that inter-faith or inter-confessional couples often marry overseas, and then subsequently apply to the government to have their marriage recognised as a civil marriage.
Discrimination and violence relates more to political affiliation than religious affiliation. DFAT is aware of limited examples of individuals targeted based on their religion alone. Nonetheless, there is low-level societal discrimination against particular religious groups in some areas.[1]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 23 October 2017, 3.13 - 3.19.
The most recent DFAT report, DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon dated 19 March 2019 contains substantively the same information.
The applicant responded that what they were worried about was not the authorities’ response, but tribal governance and legislations. He said they do not acknowledge JW and have prevented their books entering Lebanon. He said that this is just what the government says but the reality is different, it is not in the government’s interest to talk about killings and it is very well known that JW are not recognised in Lebanon. He said once there the authorities would probably detain him and then he does not know what will happen. He said his family would post a photo that he is a missing person and that will be the end of it, the family will get the authorities to take him from detention and then the family will take care of him.
I asked if he had departed lawfully and he agreed he had. I noted then that I was not sure he would be detained on return. He then said he was talking about the tribal authorities, not the Lebanese government, it was their families, their tribes they were afraid of.
Applicant two responded that she was sure that the Lebanese authorities could not protect them.
In the submission of 30 November 2018, a variety of comments were made on the situation of Lebanon without the provision of any country information supporting the claims of the applicants that they would be harmed for reasons of their religion in Lebanon.
I summarised further country information with the applicants in relation to JW in Lebanon in particular:
Unrecognised Religious Groups
Small populations of other religious groups not recognised in the Taef Accord (see Recent History), including Buddhists, Baha’is, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, live in Lebanon. Individuals are generally able to convert to these religious groups, perform religious rites and proselytise without attracting official or societal discrimination or violence.
As only the 18 recognised religious groups have allocated positions within Lebanon’s political system, unrecognised religious groups are de facto excluded from political representation. However, workarounds are available and DFAT understands that some unrecognised religious groups have incorporated as non-government organisations in order to participate in some quasi-political processes. Individuals can also register to vote as one of the recognised religious groups.
Recognised religious groups within Lebanon administer personal and family status laws on behalf of their communities. Unrecognised religious groups cannot perform legally recognised marriage or divorce proceedings, nor do they have standing to determine inheritance issues. Members of unrecognised religious groups can, however, own property. Overall, DFAT assesses that there are low levels of official and societal discrimination against members of unrecognised religious groups, exemplified by their de facto exclusion from a number of political and societal practices. DFAT assesses that unrecognised religious groups are not at risk from official or societal violence.[2]
[2] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 23 October 2017, 3.39 - 3.42.
The most recent DFAT report, DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon dated 19 March 2019 contains substantively the same information.
In 2014, Minority Rights Group International conducted interviews and research on the experiences of religious minorities in Lebanon, in which no respondents mentioned specific attacks or incidents of physical violence, and the JW respondents discussed issues of social exclusion and social and religious prejudice.[3]
[3] El Rajji, R., ‘The leaves of one tree: Religious minorities in Lebanon’, Minority Rights Group International, December 2014,
I also discussed with them country information which indicated that (as of 2008) there were 3, 600 JW in Lebanon, comprising 70 congregations, and 15 Kingdom Halls, and concentrated in Qalamoun, South of Tripoli and in the caza of Akkar.[4]
[4] NOW Lebanon, ‘Faith comes knocking’, 16 November 2008, Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Situation of Jehovah's Witnesses, including treatment by society and authorities; state protection available in cases of discrimination or mistreatment (2006-November 2013), 12 November 2013, LBN104650.E, available at:
I further summarised the report of the preliminary findings of Country Visit to Lebanon by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief of the United Nations human rights commissioner, including that ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses, although voicing certain issues of stereotyping and discrimination, at the same time declared their appreciation that they can live in Lebanon in safety and in accordance with their religious convictions’, that they by and large were able to enjoy freedom to practice their beliefs but may face problems building infrastructure.[5] The Special Rapporteur concluded by observing that:
In Lebanon, people are free to confess and practise various religions and beliefs in the way they see fit. Conversion in different directions is possible and indeed a reality – in stark contrast to most other Middle Eastern countries. People can also bear testimony to their faith and engage in missionary or “dawa” activities. Religious diversity is a visible and audible reality, as Churches and Mosques often stand in close vicinity and the ringing of bells at times blends with the Muslim prayer call. Some Lebanese openly declare themselves as agnostics or atheists and express critical views on religion in general, which is mostly appreciated as something quite natural in an open society.[6]
[5] OHCHR, Preliminary findings of Country Visit to Lebanon by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, 2 April 2015,
[6] OHCHR, Preliminary findings of Country Visit to Lebanon by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, 2 April 2015,
I explained to the applicants that this country information which I had summarised for them may lead me consider that they could practice JW and expand their practice including to engage in door to door witnessing with only a remote chance of them being harmed, that they may face low level societal and official discrimination but that I may consider this below the level of serious or significant harm in their circumstances.
The applicant responded that JW do not enjoy any of their civil rights in Lebanon. He said this group has not been recognised by the authorities. He said a JW was detained, tortured and beaten instead of doing his military service and this person’s family had deprived him of his inheritance. He said that like this person his family will never leave him alone (but there the similarities end, the applicant having completed his military service in 2002 he told me). The applicant said that what he has done is considered very disgraceful to the whole tribe in the Akkar area and they would consider him an apostate and kill him. I noted the country information that referred to one of the areas in which JW were concentrated was in Akkar. The applicant responded by asking if I believed this group would be able to hide and protect them from his family and tribe. He said he had been deprived of his inheritance and they had set a bounty for him. The applicant said that they would not be able to register themselves and their children.
Applicant two responded that the authorities could not protect her, her family and his family will kill them.
I also discussed with the applicants summarised information about the wearing of the veil by women in Lebanon. This information indicates that women in Lebanon have varying practices,[7] that wearing a head scarf is considered a personal decision,[8] and that in a recent Pew Research Center survey, 49% of respondents from Lebanon indicated that a woman with her hair uncovered by a veil or headscarf was the most appropriate style of dress for women in public.[9]
[7] Al Bawaba, ‘Lebanese Shaking off the veil: When Hijab is not compatible with tight jeans’, 11 April 2012,
[8] Faramarzi, S., ‘In Lebanon, head scarf is personal decision’ Associated Press, 14 November 2006,
[9] Poushter, J., ‘How people in Muslim countries prefer women to dress in public’, 8 January 2014, Pew Research Center,
100. I explained that this information might lead me to consider that applicant two could return and not wear the veil and would not suffer any chance of serious or significant harm as a result because wearing the veil was seen as a personal choice and not wearing the veil was considered appropriate by almost half of the respondents to the survey in Lebanon. I noted that it also appeared to indicate that Lebanon was in many ways a tolerant and diverse society.
101. Applicant two responded that the point was nothing to do with the veil or head covering or hijab, this was not the problem, the bottom line was that applicant one had converted and left his religion, and that was why she was subjected to questions about why she had continued to follow her husband. She said that she came from a very religious family and she was considered a disgrace.
102. I have carefully considered the information provided in submissions, in particular that provided in the submission dated 30 November 2018. This submission notes that JW is not a constitutionally recognised religion, and that interfaith relationships promote hostility. I note that both applicants have claimed to be adherents to JW and have not indicated that they are in an interfaith relationship. The submission argues that the gravamen of the claim was that the applicant would be harmed because he has deserted Islam. I appreciate that this is a central part of the applicant’s claims, but as I pointed out to them at the hearings, my reading of the country information was that there were not any indications that people were harmed for deserting Islam in Lebanon. It is noted that family law is administered by the confessionals, or recognised religions. This is the case, but there is no claim or suggestion that the applicants would need to access family law in the foreseeable future for issues such as divorce or custody of children and I do not accept that this will therefore impact on their lives on return to Lebanon in the foreseeable future. The submission raises the incidences of terrorist organisations and that Lebanon is a terrorist recruitment ground and refers to several Australian news articles. The Australian news articles referred to second or third generation Lebanese backgrounds being charge with terrorism offences in Australia and I do not consider these relevant to the points being made in the submission, nor to the applicant’s claims.
103. The country research quoted and referenced above makes clear that Lebanon, despite issues to do with Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations, is still largely free of damaging sectarian conflict. I do not accept that the applicants, as JW or as apostates/those who have left Sunni Islam, will face any chance of harm on return to Lebanon because there are some terrorist groups there or because Lebanon is said to be a terrorist recruitment ground – the weight of country information indicates that the situation is one of a high degree of religious tolerance and absence of sectarian violence – despite the stressors of Hezbollah, the end game of the Syrian war and other issues.
104. The submission also includes a number of emails in Arabic with English translations. These appear to have been cut and pasted by the applicant from internet websites, but they do not have any attributions to the original source of the information. I can place no weight on these documents because I do not know if they are sourced from reputable sources, if they are complete documents or only parts of longer documents (which may alter their meaning), nor do they reveal what date these documents were written or published. Some appear quotations or interpretations of Islamic religious texts which are notoriously open to various interpretations. Some appear to be threats or exhortations against JW in Lebanon but it is impossible to determine who the writer or sometimes even the people referred to are or their positions. A former Grand Mufti of Sidon is quoted, but it is unclear how much weight a former grand mufti would carry, and this document in particular (Tf.157) refers to events 20 years in the past and even earlier. There is a more recent article which refers to killings in the country in the last few years, but does not reference harm to JW, nor that any of these killings were religiously motivated, and whilst it mentions family crimes, this appears a reference to domestic violence in that the article details men killing their wives or a Syrian killing someone he suspected of having a relationship with his wife, rather than family violence because of religion or apostasy issues. There is a reference to an attack by a sheikh and his family on someone where the motivation may have been religious but there is no date or sourcing. There is reference to a number of murders or other violent crimes in Akkar, including one murder of a woman by her brother-in-law in [Village 2]. Most are undated and do not refer to the violence being religious or religiously motivated. One article points to issues of social, economic, psychological and even media factors as playing a role in the murders. Having carefully read these documents I can place no weight on them because they are either unattributed and/or do not indicate whether they are complete articles or partial articles.
Do any of the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return to Lebanon?
105. Applicant one fears that if he is deported the authorities would ask why he had been deported and would know he was JW and would place him in remand and detention. He would be released to his father who would kill the applicant and this would be very unfair to his wife and family. He said that in his area they complied with tribal law. He said he feared his father, siblings, and the tribe will kill him for being JW, for being an apostate, and/or for being one who has left Sunni Islam.
106. Applicant two said that they would kill her and her husband and take their children from them. She said that she feared her father and all her family and she expected her in-laws to take the children from her. She said she feared this because her husband has converted to JW and she had followed him when she converted.
107. I have accepted, above, that applicant one is a practicing JW, since 2012. I have not accepted that he has been harmed or threatened by his father, his family, or anyone else for reasons of his JW practice. I accept that, were he to return to Lebanon, he would, or may, continue practicing JW, including becoming baptised when he is assessed as ready and going door to door. I accept that applicant two has some interest in JW and may wish to develop this interest if she returns to Lebanon. I accept that applicant three, and the other children of the applicants born since the visa refusal, may be raised in a JW household.
108. For the following reasons, I do not accept that this leads to a real chance of persecution for any of the applicants if they return to their home area of Akkar.
109. I have not accepted the claims of past harm made by the applicant. In assessing whether he will be harmed in the future I have taken into account my credibility findings about the applicant but I have also considered the country information and what it means for those things I have accepted of the applicant. What this indicates to me is that Lebanon is a reasonably tolerant country of religious minorities including, specifically, JW. It indicates that there is a sizeable number of JW in Lebanon, and that one area of concentration is the region to which the applicant would be returning.
110. This leads me to find that the applicant can return to his region of Akkar, either his family village of [Village 2] or somewhere close by. He can attend a congregation of JW in Akkar or near Tripoli. He can go door to door witnessing. I accept that in doing this he may encounter, as he said, signs telling him not to knock, he may have doors slammed in his face, and may suffer verbal abuse. He and his family may have some feelings of social isolation. I find he could be baptised into the JW faith once he had completed his witnessing. I accept that the applicant, and his family, may suffer some low level official and societal discrimination in that they may be unable to engage fully in political processes. I do not accept that this discrimination would leave the applicant and his wife unable to register their children, or to own property, or to impact on their lives in any significant sense. I note also that other reports, including that of the special rapporteur, who looked at the situation for religious minorities in greater detail, indicates that there is less discrimination than that suggested by DFAT.
111. I find that applicant two can return to Akkar, to [Village 2], her husband’s village, or somewhere close by, and practice as a JW to the extent she wishes to, including becoming more involved if that is what she wishes to do. I find that she can continue to not wear the veil when she wishes to.
112. I find that applicant three, and his siblings, can be raised in the JW faith. I do not accept that he or his siblings will be taken from applicants one and two, there is no basis to suggest this occurs in the country information.
113. Having carefully considered the country information, I find that there is no real chance that any of the applicants will be harmed from sectarian violence on return to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because the weight of country information indicates that the situation in Lebanon is one of a high degree of religious tolerance and absence of sectarian violence.
114. I have considered their further claims raised below in the context of complementary protection. I do not accept the applicant’s claim, without more, that the Lebanese government never applies human rights. I also do not accept that any harm would come to applicant three as a result of him being orphaned because I do not accept that there is a real chance of applicants one and/or two being killed or otherwise seriously harmed.
115. I have considered the situation of the applicants, and their claims that I have accepted, cumulatively. I accept that applicant one and two, and the family in total, may suffer some official and social discrimination because of their JW faith, that this may amount to some verbal abuse when witnessing door to door, and some level of social isolation. I do not accept that this, even cumulatively, reaches the level of serious harm.
116. On considering all of the claims and characteristics of the applicants that I have accepted, I find that there is no real chance, as opposed to one that is remote, that they will be killed, significantly physically harassed or ill-treated, or seriously harmed in any other way (as opposed to the low level official and social discrimination which I find above does not reach the level of serious harm) for reasons of their religion as JW, as apostates, as those who have left Sunni Islam by applicant one’s father or family, applicant two’s family, their tribe or tribes, the authorities of Lebanon or anyone else if they return to Lebanon, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
117. The applicants are not refugees.
Are there substantial grounds to believe that any of the applicants will suffer significant harm if returned to Lebanon?
118. I asked the applicants if there was any other basis on which they believed they would be harmed on return to Lebanon. They reiterated their claims above. Applicant one also claimed that the Lebanese government never applies human rights. They also said that their son, applicant three, would be orphaned as they would both be killed, and then the son would be humiliated all his life and deprived of the way he lives here and may be recruited to violent militias.
119. Above I have rejected the claims of past harm by applicant one. I have accepted, above, that applicant one is a practicing JW since 2012, and if returned he would or may continue practicing JW, including becoming baptised when he is assessed as ready and going door to door. I accept that applicant two has some interest in JW and may wish to develop this interest if she returns to Lebanon. I accept that applicant three, and the other children of the applicants born since the visa refusal, may be raised in a JW household.
120. For the following reasons I do not accept that what I accept of the applicants’ claims lead to a real risk of any of them suffering significant harm.
121. I find, as above, that the applicants can return to Akkar and practice JW including witnessing door to door and being baptised, and applicant two choosing not to wear the veil. I accept that they will raise their children, including applicant three, in the JW faith.
122. Following my consideration of the country information, when taken with what I have accepted of their claims, I find that in return they may suffer some low level official and societal discrimination. I do not accept that this discrimination, even at its highest as discussed above, and cumulatively does not reach the level of significant harm, as defined.
123. Having carefully considered the country information, I find that there is no real risk that any of the applicants will be harmed from sectarian violence on return to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because the weight of country information indicates that the situation in Lebanon is one of a high degree of religious tolerance and absence of sectarian violence.
124. I have considered their further claims raised above. I do not accept the applicant’s claim, without more, that the Lebanese government never applies human rights. I also do not accept that any harm would come to applicant three as a result of him being orphaned because I do not accept that there is a real risk of applicant one or two being killed or otherwise significantly harmed.
125. This leads me to find that the applicants can return to Akkar and practice JW with no real risk of significant harm from their families, tribes, the authorities or anyone else. On the information before me that I do not accepted there are substantial grounds for me to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that any of them will suffer significant harm.
126. The applicants are not owed complementary protection.
Conclusions
127. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
128. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
Sean Baker
Member
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
0
6
0