1710134 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 2784

1710134 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2784 (28 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1710134

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon

MEMBER:Denise Connolly

DATE:28 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 28 May 2021 at 1:42PM

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – Religion – Jehovah’s Witness – denied official recognition – no state protection – self-imposed restrictions – applicant’s completion of degree – father’s employment – reasonable treatment shown to Jehovah's Witnesses by the authorities – restrictions does not amount to torture, cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

Any 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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 26 April 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visa on 21 March 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.  

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Background to the review

3. The applicant provided the following information in his visa application. He was born [on date] in [Town 1], Lebanon. He was studying [a degree] in Lebanon, which he commenced in September 2015, before travelling to Australia in March 2016 as the holder of a visitor visa. He is single and has never married. He was born into the Jehovah’s Witness faith and continues to be a committed member. He was formally baptised [as a child].

4. The applicant claims his formal congregation in Lebanon consisted of approximately [number] worshippers. They do not have a formal place of worship because they are not formally recognised as a religion in Lebanon. They were forced to congregate in secret locations, such as underground carparks. They congregated illegally, so were at risk of being detained.

5. The applicant claims that in June 2015, he travelled to [Country 1] for graduation, having completed an online [course]. He was awarded a 3-month internship in [Country 1], and following the completion, after his return to Lebanon, he planned to return to [Country 1] to apply for a work visa. In October 2015, the applicant returned to [Country 1] on his multiple entry visa visitor visa, but was not permitted to stay and was advised by [Country 1] authorities that he should have applied for a work visa from Lebanon. He was ordered to return immediately to Lebanon, and denied the opportunity to lodge a refugee status visa, despite informing the authorities that he was a Jehovah's Witness and had experienced difficulties in Lebanon. He showed the officials his ‘identity blood card’, informing them he had engaged in preaching activities previously in [Country 1]. He was advised this was a breach of his visitor visa conditions, and that he had no further right to stay in [Country 1]. He was denied the opportunity to seek independent legal advice.

6. The applicant claims he fears returning to Lebanon as Jehovah's Witnesses face harassment, constant threat of violence, growing threats from ‘Islamic militancy’, severe discrimination and are denied protection from the central authorities. Faced with increasing intolerance in Lebanon, Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to forgo or restrict fundamental tenets of their faith. They are denied the legal status and protection that other religions enjoy, including having formal places of worship, formal recognition of their marriages, religious identity and death certificates.

7. The applicant claims Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon are denied effective protection when they are threatened by hostile individuals or groups. Preaching activities are not tolerated by the authorities, who believe they intensify religious discord. Without effective protection, Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to significantly curtail or modify their religious activity and behaviour, and fear preaching in Muslim and Maronite areas. The Maronite clergy has attacked Jehovah's Witnesses and have made formal complaints about their preaching activities. The level of self-imposed restrictions (necessary to counter threats of physical harm), the escalating hostility faced on a daily basis, and the lack of effective police protection render impossible effective adherence to the faith.

8. The applicant submitted to the Department letters of support from the Parramatta Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Jehovah's Witness members.

   Evidence to the Tribunal

9. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. The applicant was interviewed on 10 April 2017. Relevant oral evidence is set out in the decision record. The delegate also referred to country information.

10. The delegate recorded that the applicant indicated at interview that Jehovah's Witness elders in Lebanon did not encourage him to proselytise in areas deemed to be unsafe, but also counselled that he was not failing to meet his religious obligations by limiting his proselytising activities in this manner.

11. The delegate was satisfied the applicant is a genuine practising Jehovah’s Witness, who had restricted his proselytising in order to avoid harassment, threats and violence. He accepted he fears being harmed on the basis of his religion. He found, however, that the harm faced by the applicant falls short of serious harm.  The delegate was not satisfied the applicant’s modification to religious practice conflicts with a characteristic that is fundamental to his religious identity and conscience. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution in Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future for reason of his Jehovah’s Witness faith. He found the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations, and that there is no real chance the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm if he returns to Lebanon and practises his religion.

12. The delegate noted the country information records that there are 57 Jehovah's Witness congregations in Lebanon and, as at 2017, 3,684 active members.[1] He noted Lebanon does not recognise the Jehovah's Witness religion, which means members lack access to some public institutions, and cannot perform recognised marriages or divorce proceedings. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) also considers unrecognised religious groups experience low levels of official and societal discrimination but reported there is no official or societal violence against Jehovah's Witnesses.[2]  The delegate noted the available information about the reception to Jehovah's Witnesses proselytising in Lebanon is mixed. In 2008 it was reported that it was prohibited to distribute material on the first visit; however if invited back or printed material was requested, Jehovah's Witnesses could distribute it at a later time.[3] That 2008 article recorded that one member claimed he had been beaten and assaulted while proselytising, but abuse was not the standard reaction encountered by Jehovah's Witnesses.

    [1] 2017 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body, September 2016, pp 182-183

    [2] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 18 December 2015, p 13

    [3] “Faith comes knocking”, Now Lebanon, 16 November 2008

13. The delegate recorded that in 2010 the LA Times reported that Kingdom Halls appeared to be tolerated but Jehovah's Witnesses felt vilified by Maronite Christians who call them Jews. That report indicated there are no legal barriers to proselytising but traditional attitudes discourage such activity.[4]

    [4] “In Muslim Middle East, Jehovah's Witnesses congregate in secret”, Los Angeles Times, 17 April 2010

14. The delegate noted in 2015 the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion conducted a mission in Lebanon and reported Jehovah's Witnesses feel exposed to stereotyping and discrimination but voiced clear appreciation for the fact that they can live in Lebanon in safety and in accordance with their religious convictions. The Special Rapporteur also noted that, while Jehovah’s Witnesses mostly enjoy freedom to confess and practice their beliefs, they face problems when attempting to build an infrastructure.[5]

    [5] Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on his mission to Lebanon, UN Human Rights Council, 30 November 2015, p 8

15. The delegate noted that the US Department of State reported that proselytising is not restricted by law in Lebanon.[6]  The delegate also noted Freedom House reported in 2016 that proselytising is not punishable by law in Lebanon but is discouraged, sometimes with the threat of violence.[7]  He also noted the DFAT 2014 report recorded that there are no legal barriers to proselytising.[8] In 2015 DFAT reported that minority religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses, are generally able to proselytise without attracting official or societal discrimination or violence.[9]  In 2014 DFAT reported that Jehovah’s Witnesses can proselytise in practice, as long as they do so in a relatively low-key manner.  He noted DFAT understands that there is generally more social resistance to conversion to religions that include elements of active proselytising, but this would not normally amount to violence.[10]

    [6] International Religious Freedom Report for 2015 Lebanon, US Department of State, 10 August 2016, Sec 2

    [7] Freedom in the World 2016 - Lebanon, Freedom House, 14 July 2016

    [8] DFAT Country Report Lebanon, 1 February 2014, p 14

    [9] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 18 December 2015, p 13

    [10] DFAT Country Report Lebanon, 1 February 2014, p 14

16. The delegate noted, having conducted various searches of Lebanese and international news media, major human rights reports, major foreign government reports, think tanks, peer reviewed journals, Departmental resources and general internet searches, no information was found about whether the police provide protection to proselytising Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Written submission to the Tribunal

17. After making the review application, the applicant’s representative provided a submission which included support letters from the [Suburb 1] Congregation and several other witnesses, based in Lebanon. His claims were repeated: he fears that he cannot rely on the Lebanese authorities for protection when confronted with hostility; his fear is compounded by the fact that Lebanese authorities have been known to arrest or shutdown Jehovah's Witness places of worship on charges of causing sectarian unrest and tension; as preaching is a core tenet of his faith undertaking such activities in a discerning manner renders effective practice of his faith untenable. She acknowledged the Constitution provides for freedom of religion, but the Jehovah's Witness faith is not legally recognised as an official religion and therefore does not enjoy legal rights or status. It is also submitted that as the Jehovah's Witness religion is not officially recognised, the applicant will suffer systemic and discriminatory harm and a significant threat to his liberty. Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon self-impose significant restrictions in the manner they practice their faith in order to counter threats from individuals and the authorities. The representative provided the case numbers for other Tribunal decisions regarding Jehovah's Witness in Lebanon, which were remitted.

18. The applicant also provided to the Tribunal photographs of himself with other Jehovah's Witness members, in Australia and Lebanon, and his Advanced Health Care Directive, directing he is not to receive blood transfusions.

    Hearing on 9 March 2021

19. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the requirements of the law, country information and his evidence. The following is a summary of his oral evidence.

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his photographs. There is a family photo along with other children in the congregation. The applicant identified [Mr A], whom he grew up with and who is now in Australia. There are photos of the [Suburb 2] Congregation with member [Mr B] and his family, who he come from Lebanon. There are photos of the applicant on a stage participating in Jehovah's Witness gatherings in Lebanon.

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his employment and qualifications. He is currently working in [a particular] industry. He has an Associate Degree from [Country 1]. He started studying [a degree] in Lebanon and completed a semester before coming to Australia. The Tribunal asked about the [course] in [Country 1]. The applicant said it cost about $US10,000. His father paid. He completed the degree with a distinction and was awarded an internship. It asked if he was going to work in the [industry]. He said yes, it is his passion. [Details deleted]. He still works in it now as a second job. He teaches [at a] College. The Tribunal asked if his family is financially comfortable given they paid for him to complete a degree in [Country 1]. The applicant said he studied online. He did not work during the 2 year period; he was a full-time student. His parents supported him financially and he was living with them. They supported his travel to [Country 1]. He went mid-year 2015 and  stayed for 3 months. He did no paid work. His father covered his expenses. He stayed with some Jehovah’s Witnesses who he met at the congregation in [Country 1] and they looked after him.

22. The Tribunal asked about the organisation of his proselytising in Lebanon. The applicant said he would try to be with people nearby. He went with his parents; not regularly with others. When asked if he was required to go with a woman due to safety concerns for Jehovah's Witness women in Lebanon preaching alone, he said no, but sometimes he went with his sister, though this was rare; they did not want to go out together and take that risk, as they are family. He preached with another female, but maybe only once.

23. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his family is still in Lebanon. He confirmed this and said they live in Antelias, a suburb in the city, where he previously lived. He was born in [Town 1], in the mountains. His family has a house in the mountains, but they also live in the city where his father works as a [an occupation]. His father is a practicing Jehovah’s Witness. His father has worked as a [particular occupation] all his life and has been financially comfortable. His parents go back and forth from the mountain house. Because of the coronavirus, his parents are worried about living in the city, so his father commutes every day and his mother stays in the mountains. His sister, aged [age], still lives with their parents. She is [an occupation]. He lived with his parents before coming to Australia.

24. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his parents still attend Jehovah’s Witness meetings and proselytise. He said they do as much as they can. He later said they would go maybe once a fortnight, but even that was not a constant. They do so in Beirut but there is no congregation in their mountain area. Others from the Beirut Congregation have tried to proselytise in that area, but they were kicked out as it is a very strict Maronite area. The Tribunal asked whether people in the area and their neighbours know that his parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses. He said no; they hide it. It asked about his parents’ religious background. The applicant said they converted just before he was born. They lived in Beirut at the time. Prior to the conversion, his father was a Maronite Christian and his mother was Orthodox. The Tribunal asked if his parents are currently members of a congregation in Beirut. He said they are, but it does not have a name as they don’t want people to find out. The Tribunal asked how many people are in their congregation. He said around [number] people, but it varies.  The Tribunal asked if the applicant’s parents went to regular meetings in Lebanon. He said they attend as much as they can. He went with them. It asked if they proselytised or preached in Beirut when he was a child. He said he rarely remembers them proselytising. He went with them sometimes, but it was scary. It is part of what they do as Jehovah’s Witnesses, but as a kid it was scary for him. He started going at, maybe, [age] years old.

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his baptism and proselytising. He stated he was baptised when he was [a child].  It asked if he started proselytising after he was baptised, and how often. He said he did but very rarely. It asked him to clarify ‘very rarely’, noting some Jehovah's Witnesses proselytise every day. He said his parents would go out rarely, maybe once every two weeks, but it was more informal, just if they got the chance to speak with someone; it was not planned. He said proselytising officially in Lebanon is rare. The Tribunal asked the applicant what the difference was between preaching officially and informally. He said informal practice could be just preaching to your friend or someone you meet, when you are buying shoes for example. A Jehovah’s Witness has to live the faith all the time, not just at a certain hour. He could not preach properly because he was scared. However informal preaching is not enough to do your duty as a Jehovah’s Witness as, according to the scripture, you must preach to the whole nation, including those from other religions. He was not able to do that as he feared their reactions.

26. The Tribunal indicated that it was not aware that the Bible differentiated between formal and informal preaching. The applicant responded that these are terms they used, but one must preach like he does in Australia, and to organise the preaching, otherwise, how would the Jehovah's Witnesses know who heard it. He said it should be organised, but that does not mean he cannot preach informally, for example, when buying shoes or with his friends. In Lebanon, he spoke to his friends because he knew they were not going to hurt him. He should have been preaching to others, but he was scared about their reactions. The Tribunal asked if the friends he spoke to were Jehovah’s Witnesses. He said they were not following their religion seriously. Some of them did not act like their parents, in extremist ways. It asked him if they were Christian or Muslim. He said he did not know, he never asked them, but thinks they might be Christians. They were not as tied to religion as their parents; that was why he could speak to them.

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant about an incident of harm he raised with the delegate at interview. The applicant said he knocked on someone’s door and they threatened him. The man started insulting and threatening him, chased him and said he would break his legs. He was a very extremist Christian man. It asked who he was with and whether they were also threatened.  The applicant said they were both threatened. The applicant was young at the time, about [age range]. The Tribunal asked if this was the first time he felt fear as a Jehovah’s Witness. He said that he has been fearful all his life. He was harassed and bullied at school for being a Jehovah’s Witness. He went to school in [Beirut]. He never went to school in [Town 1], as his father worked in Beirut and he would drop him off at school. The Tribunal asked the applicant how people at his school knew his family were Jehovah’s Witnesses, noting he indicated his family were secretive about their faith. He said they knew because he did not participate in Christmas or Easter events, or saluting the flag. His teacher bullied him because of his non-participation and because he was different, and his schoolmates saw this. He explained his faith to his teacher, but she did not keep it confidential.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was ever physically assaulted. He acknowledged that he had never been assaulted but claimed that, if he did not run away, the man might have broken his legs. He claimed in Lebanon, he did not go to certain areas such as Muslim areas, and self-restricted his practice to avoid serious harm. If he practiced in Lebanon as he does in Australia, he would suffer the consequences. He claimed that, if Jehovah's Witnesses went into some areas in Lebanon, they would never come out. He knows some people who have been hit and heard stories of people being assaulted. The Tribunal asked if it was his own personal decision not to go into those areas, or if this was knowledge Jehovah's Witnesses shared to keep safe. He said he personally self-restricts, but generally people try to avoid those areas as they do not want to suffer the consequences.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any congregation leaders in Beirut who told them they were not considered practicing Jehovah's Witnesses and not meeting the tenets of their faith. He said nobody has the right to say those things because faith in personal, but he knows the tenets of his faith and what he should be doing. The Tribunal asked if it was a personal decision to practice in that way. He said it is not a decision but a reaction, and self-defence as he is scared to do it. He indicated he self-modifies so he is not hurt.

3. The Tribunal raised with the applicant information in his protection visa application about his trips overseas.  He said it was when he was maybe [a child] when he went to [another country] with his parents. He went to [a second country] with his parents in 2008 or 2009, or before. It asked if his parents ever spoke about needing to leave Lebanon. He said they wished to, as it was not the life they wanted to live, hiding and not being themselves. They agreed with his decision to come to Australia. At the time it was not definite he would stay because he did not know about the freedom here until he arrived. He then sought legal advice. The Tribunal asked when his friend [Mr A] came to Australia. He said it was maybe 15 years ago. He came with his mother. It asked if [Mr A] ever told him what it was like in Australia. He said they were young and didn’t speak as often. He knew it was different to Lebanon and there was more freedom, but he did not know what it meant or felt like. He always planned to get out of his situation, but until he was in Australia and experienced it, this was when he made the decision. The Tribunal asked the applicant about when he first started thinking about leaving Lebanon to practice his religion. He said he did not think like that. He did not have a plan in mind. The Tribunal noted this appeared to be inconsistent with this evidence that he always planned to get out of his situation. He said he may have used the wrong word; he wished to be somewhere else that was better. The Tribunal asked when he first started thinking this way. He said he always thought this way. When he was young, he thought this is how life is, as a Jehovah’s Witness, but when he grew up and understood more, he saw that there are human rights and he should not be discriminated against for what he believes in.

4. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his trip to [Country 1], noting he said he was there in about June 2015, and stayed for about 3 months. It asked why he went to [Country 1]. He said he went for his graduation, and because he was awarded the internship. It asked if the school is a Jehovah’s Witness school. He said no, it is secular. It is a school tied to a university in [Country 1]. The Tribunal asked if the internship was on a voluntary basis or paid. The applicant said it was not paid. It asked what visa he held when he visited [Country 1]. He said it was a visitor visa. He confirmed he returned to Lebanon after 3-4 months, in September or October 2015. He then tried to return to [Country 1] to take up the internship. He had a multi-entry visitor visa. However they did not let him enter and told him he should have applied for a work visa from Lebanon as he was going there to work.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he advised [the Country 1] authorities that he intended to apply for a work visa. He replied yes, as he was going to look for jobs. They denied him entry as they told him he had breached his visa, even when he tried to apply for a protection visa. The Tribunal put to the applicant that [Country 1] is a Refugee Convention signatory country, and explained the obligations that signatory countries have under the Convention. It explained to the applicant that from the information available, [Country 1] would accept an application for protection from someone who claimed to be fearful of returning to their country on the basis of their religion, even if they had breached a visa condition. It explained it may not accept that [Country 1] authorities would not accept his application for protection, particularly if he had told them he was a Jehovah’s Witness from Lebanon and fearful in his country. The applicant said that when they refused his entry and told him he had to return to Lebanon, he told them about his situation in Lebanon and that he did not want to return. He said he is a Jehovah’s Witness and that he wants to seek protection. He showed the authorities his blood card and told them that he preached, and when they heard this, they told him he had breached his visa by preaching and that he should not be doing any work in [Country 1]. They considered his preaching as work, even though it was a part of his faith, and they denied him the opportunity to obtain legal advice. He did not lodge a protection application. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he told [Country 1] authorities that he wanted to apply for protection. He said he could not remember the exact words, but he did tell them that he did not want to return to Lebanon because he is a Jehovah’s Witness. The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify if he had asked to apply for protection. He said he asked to speak with a lawyer to know his rights and what he should do. They denied that request. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he told [Country 1] authorities he wanted to apply for protection. He said he did not know if he could or not, but said he wanted to seek refuge. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his intention was to seek work in [Country 1]. He said yes, and that he expected to work there after the internship. He had a job lined up.

6. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his participation in the faith in Australia. He said he used to attend the [Suburb 2] Congregation, but now attends the [Suburb 1] Congregation as he lives [in that area]. He sometimes visits the [Suburb 2] Congregation. The Tribunal asked about proselytising and how it is organised by the [Suburb 1] Congregation. He said it is all organised for them. The members are given a map. They tell the elders via an app which houses or days they proselytised. The group overseer decides where to meet. Proselytising was organised the same way at [Suburb 2]. They generally meet at the Kingdom Hall in groups to attend a talk, and then they are assigned to go to certain areas in [Suburb 1].  The Tribunal asked if this was the same practice internationally. He said it was the same in [Country 1] where he practiced, but in Lebanon they do things differently, being two people going door to door together, as they are not allowed to practice. There is no structure or set map, just an area they are meant to cover informally. The Tribunal asked how often he preaches. He said he works full time, so goes out to preach maybe once a week. It asked how many meetings he attends. He said two, one mid-week and one on the weekend. He was recently trained in preaching with an information card stand. He mainly did ‘the cards’ in Parramatta with two other people and they preached to passers-by in busy areas like train stations when people are going to work. It asked if he had ever preached in front of a mosque in Australia. He said he has not. 

7. The Tribunal noted there is a significant Muslim community in the western suburbs of Sydney, and asked if there was a discussion in the group about how they should handle the situation if they approached a Muslim home and how he would approach the situation. He said Jehovah's Witnesses are respectful of all religions and understand that in some Muslim communities, they may have to change their approaches, for example by formulating the message in a different way so not to offend anyone and to be able to preach the good news. It asked if he ever had anyone in Australia object to him coming to their home. He said yes, but nobody has threatened him. He knows he has rights here if he is threatened. It asked the applicant what he would do if somebody in Australia told him to get off their property and threatened to harm him. He said he would just leave. His preaching is not by force; he is very respectful. The Tribunal noted there are some people in Australia who object to Jehovah's Witnesses coming to their homes and they are vocal about it. It asked if he would just leave the property in those circumstances. He said yes, he would just move to the next one. If someone is aggressive he would leave as he does not want to offend them.

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he would practice his religion if he returned to Lebanon. He said he does not want to think about it, but that he would not be able to practise like he does in Australia. He would be unable to do the cards or preach door-to-door. He would try to attend meetings as much as possible. He used to attend an underground congregation, hidden in a carpark.

9. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that he returned voluntarily to Lebanon after his first visit to [Country 1]. It explained to him that his evidence indicates he was already fearful at that time as he claims that, at about aged [age range], he was threatened with harm. It explained it had concerns that he went back to Lebanon voluntarily as it might suggest he did not fear serious harm. The applicant said he was young, and it was his first time living abroad. He went home to see his family but was planning to return to [Country 1] to work. He was expecting to stay in [Country 1]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he was also young when he came to Australia, within a year of returning from [Country 1]. He confirmed he was [age range], but had experienced the freedom and sought legal advice about his options. When he went to [Country 1], he did not know how visa systems worked or what his rights were. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that his evidence indicates he had access to that information as he went to [Country 1], made connections with other Jehovah’s Witnesses, lived with them, but he still returned to Lebanon voluntarily. He replied that he expected to return to [Country 1] to work. He did not expect that he would not be able to return, as he had a multi-entry visa. He was not planning to go back to Lebanon permanently.

10. The Tribunal put to the applicant country information, some set out by the delegate in the decision record. It noted the Constitution in Lebanon provides for freedom of religion, and that even though the Jehovah’s Witness religion is unregistered, it is not illegal, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are still able to practice their religion. It noted there were no recent reports of serious harm. He replied that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not received well and are persecuted when they practice. The government cannot help him if he is attacked because they consider Jehovah’s Witnesses to be enemies and Israeli agents. The applicant referred to the supporting letters he submitted with his protection application, and the points of view of his witnesses about their experiences in Lebanon. It explained that claims made by those witnesses appeared to be inconsistent with the country information.

11. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he means by “persecution”. He said, if he knocks on the wrong door, he could be hit or killed. It asked why he thought people would kill him explaining there was no country information to indicate Jehovah’s Witnesses may be killed if they approach a hostile person. He stated the reason country information does not reflect the violence is that the government would not be proud to report it, and a lot of people restrict their practice to avoid violence.

12. The Tribunal put to the applicant country information that Jehovah's Witnesses can distribute printed material once invited back by the person to do so. It explained the authorities accept this practice and do not prevent Jehovah's Witnesses from practising. He claimed he does not know about the authorities, but he did not do the cards or preach with literature in Lebanon like he does in Australia, as it is risky, and apparently illegal. If someone asks them for information, they trust that they will not hurt them. If he was handing out pamphlets in Lebanon like he does in Australia, but handed it to the wrong people, the result “would not be pretty”. The Tribunal asked the applicant if it was his understanding that Jehovah’s Witnesses could go back to a person’s home with printed material if invited to do so after their initial encounter. He said yes. He would not give literature on the first interaction unless he knew the person and they requested the material. He agreed with the country information that he could go back to the person’s house with material. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it might consider this a reasonable modification. The applicant said the modification is that they cannot go to preach with literature. The restriction is that they cannot preach to all people in all areas, and the commandment is to preach to all the nations.

13. The Tribunal put to the applicant that country information indicates Jehovah's Witnesses can and do preach in Lebanon. It made reference to the report by the Special Rapporteur who said that, while Lebanese Jehovah’s Witnesses felt stereotyped and discriminated against, they felt they could live in Lebanon in safety and in accordance with their religious convictions, that they could practice their religion, and that they do not suffer physical harm or violence as a consequence. It asked for the applicant’s comment. The applicant responded that he does not know who was interviewed, and referred to his witnesses’ letters stating that people suffer harm and discrimination. He is under a burden of conscience not to be able to say who he is and live like a normal person. He said Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot get married or be buried when they die. They live in constant fear, not knowing who will attack them. The Tribunal put to the applicant his voluntary return to Lebanon in 2015 after his first trip to [Country 1], raised concerns about his claims he was in a constant state of fear as a Jehovah's Witness in Lebanon. It put to the applicant that the country information does not support the claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses significantly restrict their practice in Lebanon to the extent that practising their faith is not tenable. The applicant replied that what is stated in the report is not what happens on the ground. He lived there his whole life and could not live freely and practice his religion the way he should.

14. The Tribunal also raised with the applicant that there was no country information supporting claims that the authorities will not protect him. It explained it could not locate any reports to indicate the authorities actively refuse to protect Jehovah’s Witnesses. The applicant replied that he knows people who have been hurt by the authorities and knows he cannot rely on them because they hate Jehovah’s Witnesses. He mentioned the letter from his witness [Mr B], who applied to come to Australia on claims of not receiving protection from the authorities. The Tribunal advised the applicant it is not bound by previous Tribunal decisions. It explained it depends on the applicant’s circumstances and the current country information.

15. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s family appears to be financially comfortable, his father has maintained secure employment, they own two homes, and his father has paid for his studies and travel to [Country 1]. It put to the applicant that in some countries, if the authorities target a certain group, it might impact employment and accommodation. It explained there was no evidence to suggest the applicant or his family had been subjected to ill treatment by the authorities. The applicant said his parents had their properties before they converted and his father already had his job. His father would not lose his job but it might be hard for the applicant starting out. He claimed to know people who have been kicked out of their jobs because of their faith. He claimed he was bullied and harassed at school. The Tribunal noted that despite this, he was accepted into a [degree] and had commenced studying. He claimed the employer does not know his father is a Jehovah’s Witness. He said his father told him this. His father does not preach or talk about religion at work. They know him as a Maronite, which is how he is registered. The family register extract shows him, and the applicant, as Maronites because Jehovah's Witnesses are illegal.

16. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his father practices his faith. He replied that he does as much as he can. It asked if he proselytises or preaches. He said that he does but he would not risk his job by doing it at work, as he has a family to support. He assumes it is because his father does not want to take the risk. Jehovah's Witnesses need to be smart about practicing their faith and modify accordingly, so they do not lose their job or get hurt. His father should be informally preaching at work but does not because of the risk. Also when a Jehovah's Witness is working, they do not think about preaching because they are busy.

17. The Tribunal advised the applicant that it had not yet made its findings, and that it may accept that Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon suffer legal and societal discrimination regarding marriage, securing some types of employment including public positions, and enduring some verbal insults, ridiculing and threats. It raised however that it may not be satisfied that the harm meets the level of serious or significant harm. It asked the applicant to comment. He responded that he does not believe he needs a story of being hit or physically harmed. He is not able to be the Jehovah’s Witness he should be in Lebanon because he is afraid of being assaulted and violated. The incident when he was younger traumatised him and since then he has not wanted to take the risk. If he was able to preach in Lebanon, like he does in Australia, he would.  

18. The Tribunal raised the possible difficulty reconciling the fact that his father restricts his own practice but he allowed his [age]-year-old son to preach and risk being physically injured. He replied that he does not know the reason his father does not disclose his faith, but imagines it is to not risk his job and to support his family, as he has the only income. The Tribunal asked why he would let his [age]-year-old son preach on the streets and potentially be seriously harmed. The applicant replied that he did not expect at the time to be threatened like he was because he was not going to the areas where that might happen.

19. The Tribunal advised the applicant that one of the issues it must consider is whether self-modification would be considered serious harm or unreasonable. It asked the applicant to comment. He stated that if he returned to Lebanon, he would not be able to preach to all the nations, which is a core tenet of his faith. He would not be able to preach publicly or give literature to people. If he knocks on the wrong door, he could be hit or violated. He has the support of the police in Australia if something goes wrong here but does not have that in Lebanon. The Tribunal raised that the country information is inconsistent with these claims as Lebanon appears to be tolerant of religious difference, with 18 recognised religions as well as some unregistered. The applicant stated he has never been tolerated in Lebanon. He knows now what it is like to live a normal life, since he has been in Australia for 5 years.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant, if his parents could proselytise once a fortnight, why could they did not proselytise more often. He did not know how often they proselytised, but thought they try really hard to preach because they have to as Jehovah's Witnesses. He said twice a month is as much as they can do. He indicated they proselytise together, not so much with others. It asked why that is. He said, when you go out as a family, it looks less suspicious. The Tribunal raised with him that he had said earlier he would not preach with his sister because they were family. He replied that he would not take the risk of going with his sister as they were young. He would go with either his mother or father, but not with his sister. He said they were told not to go together.

2. The applicant confirmed he obtained the blood card in Australia in August 2017. The Tribunal asked why, if he arrived in Australia in March 2016, he waited until August 2017 to get the blood card. He replied that he probably had an old one with him, but then he started to make contacts in Australia. The Tribunal asked if the old one was in English. He said he was not sure but thinks it might have been in Arabic. He did not know because he did not look at it all the time.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any further evidence to give or claims to make. He replied he had nothing further to say.

   Country Information

4. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments 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. The Tribunal has also considered other country information referred to by the delegate and the information discussed with the applicant at the hearing.

5. DFAT reports that:

   Article 9 of the Constitution states that there shall be absolute freedom of conscience and respect for all religions and creeds. It guarantees that the state shall protect the free exercise of all religious rites provided that public order is not disturbed, and that the personal status and religious interests of all religious sects shall be respected.

   The state officially recognises 18 religious confessions. These include four Muslim groups (Shi’a, Sunni, Alawites, and Ismaili’s); 12 Christian groups (Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholics, Syriac Orthodox, Syriac Catholics, Nestorian Assyrians, Chaldeans, Copts, Latin [Roman] Catholics, and Evangelicals); Jews; and Druze, a religion that combines traditional Islamic teachings with certain philosophical ideas and mystic practices. Under the political power-sharing arrangements, the government includes Druze in the Muslim group. Unrecognised groups include Baha’is, Buddhists, Hindus and several other Protestant groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Human rights groups report that unrecognised religious groups can legally own property,and are able to assemble for worship and perform their religious rites freely. Because Lebanon has not conducted a census since 1932, no current official statistics are available on the country’s religious communities. Unofficial estimates of the size of the communities vary, but interlocutors agree that the combined Muslim communities now outnumber the combined Christian communities….

   With the exception of Beirut, most cities do not contain communities from all major religions. Different religious groups tend to be concentrated in particular areas…

   Unlike in most other Arab countries, Lebanese are able to change their religious affiliation legally, converting not only from Christianity to Islam, but also from Islam to Christianity. Conversions also take place between different Christian denominations and (more rarely) between followers of different branches of Islam. To convert to a different religion, a local senior official of the religious group the person wishes to join must approve the change, and the newly joined religious group must issue a document confirming the convert’s new religion. The convert can then register their new religion with MoIM’s Personal Status Directorate. The new religion is included thereafter on government-issued civil registration documents, along with mention of the original religion.

   …

   Human rights observers report that relationships between religious groups in Lebanon are generally peaceful, particularly by regional and historical standards. In his November 2015 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief noted that the situation between religious groups was largely amicable; that people generally practised their religion freely; and there was no religious persecution in the country. He further noted that Lebanon had successfully kept society united across religious boundaries, built resilience in the face of religious extremism, and that Lebanese of all religious backgrounds were committed to defending the diversity of the country’s religions and beliefs. Interreligious dialogue between religious leaders and communities occurs. Religious leaders have regularly condemned extremism and violence perpetrated in the name of religion following terrorist attacks in the region against religious targets. Violent clashes with religious overtones have been less common in Lebanon in recent years. Where violence has occurred between communal groups (such as between Alawites and Sunnis in Tripoli), it has generally been low-level and localised in nature (see Security Situation). Lebanese religious leaders and state authorities are sensitive to the potential impact of communal violence on national security, including the possibility that external conflicts with sectarian dimensions (particularly the Syria conflict) could impact on the coexistence of religious communities in Lebanon. The Criminal Code contains a number of provisions prohibiting calls to strife and sedition on religious grounds, including Articles 295, 308, 310, 313, 317, and 318. DFAT assesses that Lebanese authorities are committed to preventing violence between religious communities. DFAT assesses that members of recognised religious groups do not face any official discrimination on the basis of religion. Members of recognised religious groups who are in the minority in particular geographic areas may face low-level societal discrimination, which may include being precluded from access to employment or housing but is unlikely to include violence. This assessment also applies to members of unrecognised religious groups. Official discrimination against this group is discussed in the following section.

   …

   While all of the 18 officially recognised religious denominations are empowered to apply their own laws and maintain their own judicial systems in relation to personal status matters, not all do: international observers report that Lebanon has 15 separate personal status law codes. There is limited government oversight over religious courts. Unrecognised religious groups cannot perform legally recognised marriage or divorce proceedings, and do not have standing to determine inheritance issues. They can, however, legally own property. Human rights observers have reported that some members of unregistered religious groups, including Baha’i and unrecognised Protestant denominations, list themselves as belonging to recognised religious groups in government records in order to ensure their marriage and other personal status documents remain valid.

   …

   DFAT assesses that the absence of civil law options for personal status matters, without the extreme step of removing a sect from an ID card, represents a moderate level of discrimination against members of unrecognised religious groups and non-religious individuals in that they are unable to access or register marriage, divorce, or inheritance services available to other Lebanese without misrepresenting their religious faith (or lack thereof). DFAT assesses that the absence of civil law options for personal status matters has a particularly negative impact on women from all confessional backgrounds, which represents a moderate level of discrimination against them.[11]

   [11] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 19 March 2019, 3.9 - 3.26.

6. The Tribunal notes the delegate was unable to find any information about whether the police provide protection to proselytising Jehovah's Witnesses. It too was unable to find recent reports of security forces either targeting or not providing protection for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon. It found no recent reports of incidents of serious or significant harm involving Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon. They are not mentioned in the latest US Department of State International Religious Freedom report, or in any annual human rights reports.

7. The Tribunal notes the European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses claims that Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon meet covertly in private homes to study the Bible in small groups, and have limited access to their religious texts but have expressed their gratitude for the generally reasonable treatment shown by the authorities, who tolerate their meetings and allow them to gather peacefully. However they seek the full enjoyment of their rights in a non-discriminatory way.[12]

   [12] Contribution for the 37th Session of the UPR (2–13 November 2020) - Lebanon', European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses, 19 March 2020

8. 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. The Jehovah's Witness respondents however discussed issues of social exclusion and social and religious prejudice.[13]

   [13] El Rajji, R., ‘The leaves of one tree: Religious minorities in Lebanon’, Minority Rights Group International, December 2014,

9. A Country Visit to Lebanon was conducted by the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner on freedom of religion or belief, including Jehovah’s Witnesses. It was reported that, although voicing certain issues of stereotyping and discrimination, Jehovah's Witnesses 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 practise their beliefs but may face problems building infrastructure.[14] 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.[15]

   [14] OHCHR, Preliminary findings of Country Visit to Lebanon by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, 2 April 2015,  

   [15] OHCHR, Preliminary findings of Country Visit to Lebanon by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, 2 April 2015,   

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

10. 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, he or she 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.

11. 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 because the person is a refugee. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

12. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

13. 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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Nationality

14. The applicant presented to the Tribunal his passport, confirming he is a citizen of the Republic of Lebanon. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate he has a right to reside in any other country. The Tribunal therefore accepts that the applicant is a national of Lebanon and assesses his claims against Lebanon as the receiving country.

    The applicant’s claims

15. On the basis of the supporting statement from [Suburb 1] Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, attesting to his involvement in the Congregation in Australia, and his oral evidence to the delegate and at the hearing, the Tribunal accepts the applicant is currently a practising Jehovah's Witness in Australia. It discusses his claims to have practised in Lebanon, and its assessment of whether he will continue to practise the religion if he returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future, in more detail below.

16. The applicant has provided several letters of support as follows:

    ·   [Mr C] of Beirut states that he is a Jehovah’s Witness serving as an elder in Lebanon and that Jehovah’s Witnesses are often subjected to threats, expulsions, sometimes leading to physical violence and oppression. [Mr C] does not make any statement as to whether the applicant was practising in Lebanon before he travelled to Australia.

    ·   [A named person] states that he has been a Jehovah’s Witness in Lebanon for many years and the faith faces injustice and unfairness. He does not make any statement as to whether the applicant was practising in Lebanon before travelling to Australia.

    ·   [A second named person] states he has been a Jehovah’s Witness in Lebanon since his childhood and it is not a recognised religion. He claims there is no safe way to practice the faith and when they attempt to preach door-to-door they face threats, violence and unreasonable discrimination. He does not make any statement as to whether the applicant was practising in Lebanon before travelling to Australia.

    ·   [The] applicant’s father, states that he has been a Jehovah’s Witness for a long time and the religion is prohibited and not officially recognised in his country. He claims to have been subjected to threats and expulsions, sometimes leading to physical violence and oppression. He does not make any statement as to whether the applicant was practising in Lebanon before travelling to Australia.

    ·   [A third named person] states that he has been a Jehovah’s Witness for a long time in Lebanon and the religion is not officially recognised. He claims to have been subjected to threats and expulsion, physical harm, violence and oppression. He claims that because the religion is prohibited the Lebanese authorities do not provide essential protection and security.  He does not make any statement as to whether the applicant was practising in Lebanon before travelling to Australia.

    ·   [Mr B] states that he suffered in Lebanon as a Jehovah’s Witness. He claims that the Lebanese government banned their work and prevented them from practising the religion. He claims they are considered to be dealing with the enemy state Israel. When they carried out their evangelical work they were assaulted by hooligans at the behest of Christian clerics, Muslim clerics and Lebanese political parties. He claimed that they were unable to practise their religion with freedom and did not have places to hold meetings officially. Their meeting places were intruded upon and officially shutdown which forced them to meet in private homes. [Mr B] was granted protection in Australia. He does not make any statement as to whether the applicant was practising in Lebanon before travelling to Australia.

17. The Tribunal notes that none of the applicant’s witnesses have stated that the applicant was practising as a Jehovah’s Witness in Lebanon. It has taken into account the applicant’s photographs said to have been taken in Lebanon with fellow Jehovah's Witnesses and his family. There is a photograph of the applicant speaking on stage at what appears to be a conference or meeting. This does not support the applicant’s claim that Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon were forced to meet covertly in carparks. On the basis of his oral evidence and the photographic evidence it accepts the applicant practised the Jehovah's Witness faith in Lebanon.

18. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim that he was threatened while proselytising at age [age range]. He indicated that this incident caused him so much fear that he was reluctant to continue to proselytise. The Tribunal notes that when asked if the other Jehovah's Witness member with whom he was proselytising was also threatened the applicant did not indicate it was a family member. The Tribunal is somewhat concerned as to whether the applicant’s father would have let him proselytise as [an age] year old without a parent accompanying him if it was the case it was as dangerous as he claims. The applicant indicated that his father did not disclose his religion at work for fear of losing his employment. He indicated he rarely remembers, as a child, his parents proselytising. He went with them sometimes, but it was scary. The Tribunal questioned whether his father would have allowed his [age] year old son to preach and risk being physically injured. He replied that he does not know the reason his father does not disclose his faith, but imagines it is to not risk his job and to support his family, as he has the only income. The applicant replied that he did not expect at the time to be threatened like he was because he was not going to the areas where that might happen. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has adequately explained why his father would let his [age] year old son preach without accompanying him, if it was the case that Jehovah's Witnesses were modifying their practice because of fear of abuse and harm. It is not satisfied the applicant was proselytising when he was [age] years old without a parent. Accordingly it is not satisfied, while proselytising, an extremist Christian threatened him, chased him and said he would break his legs.

1. The Tribunal notes that when it asked the applicant about his proselytising practice in Lebanon he indicated he would try to be with people nearby, he went out with his parents but not regularly with others, his parents only proselytised once a fortnight and that he sometimes went out with his sister though this was rare. He claimed that he preached with another female only once. He also indicated he did not preach with his sister because they were family and they would not take that risk. However he subsequently indicated that his parents always preach together as if Jehovah's Witnesses go out as a family it looks less suspicious. When this apparent inconsistency was raised with him he indicated that it was different for him and his sister because they were young. He then indicated he did not preach with his sister because they were told not to go together. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s evidence about his preaching to be vague, somewhat inconsistent and not reflective of a Jehovah's Witness who regularly proselytised. It also notes from the delegate’s decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant that he told the delegate at interview that the Jehovah’s Witness elders in Lebanon did not encourage him to proselytise in areas deemed to be unsafe but also reassured him that he was not failing to meet his religious obligations by limiting his proselytising activities in this manner. It notes that his blood card is dated August 2017, over a year after he made his visa application. When asked whether he had a blood card before then he claimed he probably had an old one, but he could not remember if it was in Arabic because he did not look at it all the time. However he has also claimed to have shown it to the authorities in [Country 1]. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant showed the blood card to the authorities in [Country 1] he would remember whether it was in Arabic. It has some doubt that he had a blood card before he was issued with his current card in August 2017. Having regard to all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal has formed the view the applicant did some irregular, informal proselytising in Lebanon before he came to Australia. It is not satisfied the country information reported by DFAT, the Special Rapporteur and the European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses supports his claim that Jehovah's Witnesses significantly modified their proselytising practice because of fear of serious harm. It has formed the view the applicant proselytised in this irregular, informal way by choice, reflecting his commitment to the faith and its tenets.

2. The applicant has claimed his attendance at meetings was restricted because congregating was illegal and they risked being detained. He has claimed they had to congregate in secret locations such as underground car parks. As discussed above this claim is undermined by the applicant’s own photographic evidence. The Tribunal notes the European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses has reported that Jehovah’s Witnesses do meet covertly in private homes to study the Bible in small groups but they express their gratitude for the generally reasonable treatment shown by the authorities, who tolerate their meetings and allow them to gather peacefully. It also notes that in 2014, Minority Rights Group International recorded that in conducting interviews about the experience of religious minorities in Lebanon, no respondents mentioned specific attacks or incidents of physical violence. The Jehovah's Witness respondents however discussed issues of social exclusion and social and religious prejudice. DFAT has reported that unrecognised religious groups are able to assemble for worship and perform their religious rights freely. The Tribunal accepts that Jehovah’s Witnesses may need to meet covertly. However, having regard to the country information, it is not satisfied that they risk being detained. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant was able to attend meetings discreetly, as he did before travelling to Australia. It is satisfied he will be able to practice this tenet of his religion if he returns to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future. It is not satisfied that meeting discreetly amounts to serious harm.

3. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has indicated he did not preach formally in Lebanon because Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to practise this tenet. He has claimed that preaching activities are not tolerated by the authorities. While the Tribunal accepts that there are some restrictions on proselytising in Lebanon, such as there might be certain areas where Jehovah's Witnesses choose not to proselytise, it notes the country information indicates that it was reported in 2010 that there was no legal barrier to proselytising. DFAT reports the UN Special Rapporteur in his November 2015 report on freedom of religion or belief in Lebanon noted that people generally practised their religion freely; and there was no religious persecution in the country. The European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in 2020 expressed their gratitude for the generally reasonable treatment shown by the authorities in Lebanon, who tolerate their meetings and allow them to gather peacefully. It also notes the applicant’s own evidence that elders in Lebanon counselled that he was not failing to meet his religious obligations by limiting his proselytising activities. Having regard to all of this information the Tribunal is not satisfied Jehovah's Witnesses are not adhering to the tenets of their faith. The Tribunal also gives this country information more weight than the claims by the applicant and his witnesses that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to physical violence and oppression. The only country information reference to Jehovah's Witnesses suffering serious harm and clerics ordering violence was reported in 2008.  It notes since then DFAT reported in 2014 that Jehovah’s Witnesses can proselytise, as long as they do so in a relatively low-key manner. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant did not preach formally in Lebanon because he was not allowed to practise. It takes into account the statements set out above by his witnesses stating they face assaults, violence, “expulsions” and oppression. However it was unable to find any recent reports of incidents of serious or significant harm involving Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon. It is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm if he returns to Lebanon and proselytises as he did in the past, or as those Jehovah's Witnesses reporting to the Special Rapporteur and the European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses proselytise.

4. The applicant referred to restrictions on Jehovah's Witnesses distributing printed material. The Tribunal notes the country information indicates there are restrictions in importing religious literature and publicly sharing beliefs. However it is satisfied that if invited back or printed material is requested, Jehovah's Witnesses can distribute it at a later time.[16] The Tribunal is not satisfied this modification amounts to serious harm.

   [16] “Faith comes knocking”, Now Lebanon, 16 November 2008

5. A witness for the applicant stated Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon face growing threats from Islamic militancy. The Tribunal was unable to find country information supporting this claim. In another matter reviewed by the Tribunal, the applicant in that case claimed that he had been held at gunpoint by Hezbollah and he feared being harmed by Hezbollah in the future. The Tribunal found in that case that the country information did not support the claim that there was a real chance of serious harm inflicted by Hezbollah because of that applicant’s Jehovah's Witness religion. The applicant in this case did not raise a similar claim himself. Having regard to the recent country information the Tribunal is not satisfied Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon face threats from Islamic militancy. 

6. Having regard to the country information the Tribunal is not satisfied that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon face constant threats of violence, growing threats from Islamic militancy or severe discrimination as claimed. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant will be able to preach in Lebanon, as he did before travelling to Australia, if he returns in the reasonably foreseeable future. It is not satisfied the self-imposed restrictions on his practice, such as preaching more informally and restricting the areas in which he preaches, render his practice ineffective or untenable. It is satisfied the applicant was, and will be, able to practise the tenets of the faith in Lebanon, including proselytising, and that any modification made did not require him to alter his beliefs or cease to be involved in the practise of his faith. It is not satisfied those modifications amount to serious harm.

7. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim to have been bullied at school because of his faith. It accepts his decision to not participate in Christmas or Easter events, or salute the flag, may have drawn his teacher’s attention and that he may have suffered some bullying. It notes however that the applicant has since completed his study of choice and commenced a [degree] in Lebanon. He did not indicate he was bullied or harassed at university. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant will face discrimination of this nature in an educational context if he returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future and returns to study. It is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant faces serious harm as a Jehovah's Witness student.

8. The applicant indicated a concern about his employment prospects as a Jehovah's Witness. He indicated his father has not disclosed his religion at work because of fear of losing his employment. The country information records that members of unrecognised religious groups in particular geographic areas may face low-level societal discrimination, which may include being precluded from access to employment, however it does not state this is the case in Beirut, where the applicant’s father worked. In his November 2015 report, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief noted that the situation between religious groups was largely amicable; that people generally practised their religion freely; and there was no religious persecution in the country. DFAT also reports low levels of societal discrimination stereotyping and discrimination of minority religions. None of the reports state that Jehovah's Witnesses are abused, harassed and/or bullied at work. The Tribunal accepts there may be some restricted access to employment in some areas, and some discrimination and stereotyping in the workplace, as there is low level societal discrimination of Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon. However, having considered the country information, while the Tribunal accepts the applicant may fear his employment prospects will be affected if he returns to Lebanon, the Tribunal is not satisfied he will not be able to secure some employment. It is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm in the workplace because of his Jehovah's Witness faith.

9. The applicant has claimed that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not officially recognised and are denied protection from the Lebanese authorities. He has claimed the authorities do not tolerate preaching and so he cannot rely on effective protection if threatened. He has claimed if Jehovah's Witnesses go into some areas in Lebanon they will never come out.   The Tribunal has not been able to find any recent reports of police or security forces either targeting or not providing protection for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon. It has found no recent reports of incidents of serious harm involving Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon. They are not mentioned in the latest US Department of State International Religious Freedom report, or in any of the annual human rights reports. In fact the European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses expressed their gratitude for the generally reasonable treatment shown by the authorities in Lebanon. The Tribunal is not satisfied the authorities will not protect the applicant if he is attacked while practising their religion. Given the country information from the European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses the Tribunal is satisfied protection against persecution could be provided to the applicant by the Lebanese authorities. It is not satisfied the applicant will be denied state protection in Lebanon because he is a Jehovah's Witness. 

10. The applicant has claimed he will suffer systemic and discriminatory harm and a significant threat to liberty. Having regard to the country information the Tribunal accepts there is some official discrimination of Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon. It accepts, as the Jehovah's Witness religion is unrecognised by the authorities in Lebanon, they cannot perform recognised marriages or divorce proceedings. It accepts the applicant and his father are registered as Maronite Christians because their Jehovah's Witness religion is unregistered. The Tribunal notes DFAT has assessed low levels of official and societal discrimination but reported there is no official or societal violence against Jehovah's Witnesses. The Tribunal appreciates that Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon want recognition, to build an infrastructure and seek enjoyment of their rights in a non-discriminatory way. However it is not satisfied the level of discrimination suffered by Jehovah's Witnesses amounts to serious or significant harm or a significant threat to liberty.

11. The Tribunal notes the applicant travelled to [Country 1] in 2015 and voluntarily returned to Lebanon after 3 months. He then returned to [Country 1] where he was denied entry. He has claimed that [Country 1] authorities denied him an opportunity to lodge a refugee visa application, despite informing the authorities that he was a Jehovah's Witness and had experienced difficulties in Lebanon. Having considered [Country 1]’s obligations as a signatory to the Convention, and his oral evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was denied an opportunity to lodge a protection visa application in [Country 1]. This raises some concern as to whether he told [Country 1] authorities he feared serious harm in Lebanon because he is a Jehovah's Witness. The Tribunal accepts the applicant wanted to return to [Country 1] to work. However it is not satisfied he wanted to migrate to [Country 1] because he feared serious or significant harm in Lebanon. It considers his evidence regarding his plans to, and reasons for, leaving Lebanon, and his voluntary return to Lebanon, not reflective of someone who genuinely feared persecution in Lebanon.

12. The Tribunal has considered all of the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively. It is satisfied the applicant will practise his Jehovah's Witness faith if he returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future, in the manner he has in the past, that is, meeting discreetly and proselytising with some modification. Having regard to the country information it is not satisfied this will require the applicant to forgo or restrict his practice to the extent that he is not able to adhere to the tenets of his faith. Overall having considered all of the evidence and the country information, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm (as opposed to low level official and societal discrimination which does not reach the level of serious harm) because of his Jehovah's Witness religion. It is not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis of his religion. It is not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for any reason if he returns to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the reasons given above, it is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

    Complementary protection criterion

13. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether he meets the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion.

14. Having considered the country information, the Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future he may suffer some low level official and societal discrimination. It notes the Special Rapporteur reports Jehovah's Witnesses face problems when attempting to build an infrastructure. The European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses seek the full enjoyment of their rights in a non-discriminatory way. The Tribunal is not satisfied these limitations amount to significant harm as it is not satisfied it amounts to torture, cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.

15. The Tribunal notes the European Association of Jehovah's Witnesses has reported that Jehovah's Witnesses must meet covertly in their homes and there were restrictions in importing religious literature and publicly sharing beliefs but that Jehovah's Witnesses in Lebanon have expressed their gratitude for the generally reasonable treatment shown to Jehovah's Witnesses by the authorities. The Tribunal is not satisfied those restrictions amount to torture, cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment. The Tribunal is not satisfied the discrimination the applicant may face if he returns to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future, and practises his faith, will amount to being arbitrarily deprived of life, or that the death penalty will be carried out, or  that he will be subjected to torture or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. It is not satisfied the applicant meets the criterion set out in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

17. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Denise Connolly
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

    5 (1) Interpretation

    …

    cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

    (a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

    (b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

    but does not include an act or omission:

    (c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5H    Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)     any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)     the person can access the protection; and

    (b)     the protection is durable; and

    (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    …

    36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …