1710838 (Refugee)

1710838 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2009 (19 March 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1710838
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon
MEMBER:Denise Connolly
DATE:19 March 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 19 March 2021 at 5:19pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – actual or imputed political opinion – fear of harm from Hezbollah – credibility concerns – inconsistent and evolving claims and evidence – medical evidence – delay in seeking protection – particular social group – single, divorced woman with no male protection in Lebanon – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 28 April 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
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 review
When making the visa application the applicant provided the following information. She was born in [Town 1], Lebanon on [date]. She is a Sunni Muslim. She married [in] March 1990 and divorced [in] February 2014 in Lebanon. Her occupation is [Occupation 1]. Her parents [and] brothers reside in Lebanon. She has two sons residing in Australia and one son in Lebanon. She has regular contact with her family in Lebanon. Prior to travelling to Australia she lived in Beirut from August 2014 and in Tripoli from 2009 to August 2014. She was a [Occupation 1], [Occupation 2] from 2008 to 2014 and worked as an [Occupation 1] for a [business] in Beirut from August 2014 until she travelled to Australia. She has a Bachelor [degree]. She travelled to Australia [in] November 2015 as the holder of a visitor visa issued on 21 October 2015, using a passport issued [in] 2014.
The applicant stated she previously applied for protection in [Country 1] in December 1991 which was unsuccessful. She went to [Country 1] to work in 1991 and remained there until 1997. Her then husband applied for refugee status and she applied as his dependent. She has also previously travelled to [Country 2] in October 2014 and [Country 3] in November 2014.
In her visa application the applicant claims that in September 2014 she was working in a [business] located in [Suburb 1], a Shi'a suburb near [location]. One day she noticed the roads leading to the [location] were closed by burning tyres. She began filming the incident to advise the [business’] customers to avoid using the unsafe roads. The armed men setting the tyres on fire spotted her, approached her, pushed her to the ground, took her camera and mobile phone, and brutally kicked her. Her employer advised her to leave work until it was safe to return. On returning after two weeks’ overseas she noticed strange people hanging around. They looked at her “face to face with evil and angry expressions on their faces”. She believed they had ill intentions towards her. She was then the victim of an attempted murder, having been hit by a motorcycle. After this incident, she knew she could be subjected to physical assault and serious harm if she stayed in Lebanon. She does not have the protection of a man as she is divorced. She is at risk of being assaulted, kidnapped, harmed or killed at any time and is unwilling to return to Lebanon. If she returns to Lebanon she will have to live alone. In Lebanon a divorced woman faces extreme hardship especially if she comes to the attention of thugs and armed militia members. Her visitor visa to come to Australia saved her life. She is safe living in Australia, with the support of her two sons, where she can go out safely.
The applicant claims she experienced physical and psychological harm by the armed men who wanted to kill her. One of them pushed her to the ground, took her camera and mobile phone and then kicked her brutally. They were dressed in black and riding motorcycles. When they were leaving, they began shooting towards her. Passers-by pushed the applicant out of the way and transported her to her grandmother’s house in [address]. She was afraid to go to any clinic or hospital in the south and western suburbs of Beirut as she knew they were under the control of Hezbollah and armed militias so she was treated at her grandmother’s place by [Dr A].
The applicant claims her previous workplace is not a safe area for her to return to work, and she does not have sufficient savings to support herself in Lebanon. Given the high cost of living and rental accommodation it would be extremely difficult for her to move to another part of Lebanon. She will suffer emotional, psychological and financial hardship.
The applicant claims the Lebanese government is unable to provide an acceptable level of protection to its civilians, and women with no male protection are subjected to harassment and abuse by men. The Lebanese government is unable to protect her from thugs and armed militias, such as Hezbollah, who have made Lebanon unsafe particularly in northern Lebanon and Beirut.
The applicant attached a written statement to her visa application in which she further claims she faced an attempted murder by armed men while crossing the main road in [Suburb 2], an area controlled by Hezbollah. The armed men’s bullets fell everywhere. She was saved miraculously by passers-by and transported to her grandmother’s place on [address] where she was treated by [Dr A] as she feared hospitals and clinics in southern and western Beirut which are under the control of Hezbollah and armed militias.
The applicant claims the murder attempt happened at a time when the roads were closed by tyres set on fire. She filmed the incident intending to advise the [business’] customers to avoid the unsafe roads leading to [location]. She faced the “killing attempt” when armed men came towards her, pushing her to the ground, taking her camera and her mobile phone and kicking her brutally.
The applicant claims the stalking problem then began so, fearing for her life, she escaped to [Country 3] for ten days, as advised by her employer. When she returned, she noticed daily stalking. She knew she could not remain in Lebanon and that she needed to save her life. She would see them from the [workplace’s] window, where they would look her in the face. It very obvious that she could face death at any time, killed by these people.
The applicant claims her life is at risk in Lebanon, without anyone to protect her. Her son asked her to escape because remaining there would expose his life to danger. Fearing for her and her son’s safety, she decided to run away from Lebanon because the Lebanese authorities are unable to protect her as they are unable to protect themselves from the armed militias and groups, especially Hezbollah in northern and southern Lebanon, and in Beirut. The applicant cannot live in any other area in Lebanon as she does not have any protection whatsoever, and will definitely face persecution, kidnap and death.
The applicant provided various documents with her visa application including:
a.a divorce certificate dated [in] February 2014
b.a Proxy Sale of an Estate dated [in] September 2013 appointing her to represent her husband in relation to an estate in Tripoli
c.a medical certificate from [Dr A], [medical specialist], dated 20 January 2016, recording she was hit in a motorcycle accident and suffered severe contusion of her lumbar sacral spine for which she was treated for 6 months with medication
d.an employment letter indicating she commenced working for [Company 1] as an [Occupation 1] in August 2014
e.family registration documents.
Evidence to the Tribunal
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. It records that the applicant was interviewed on 18 April 2017. The Tribunal has listened to the recording of that interview. Aspects of the applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate are set out and discussed in the decision record.
The delegate recorded that the applicant claimed she had an argument with Hezbollah members in September 2014 and she was subsequently stalked and threatened by these men. She claimed she was then shot at and hit by a motorcycle in February 2015 and then continued to be stalked and threatened by Hezbollah members. The delegate found the applicant did not give plausible and consistent evidence concerning her feud with Hezbollah. Regarding her claim to have been in dispute with Hezbollah in September 2014, the delegate noted that, at the time of application, the applicant claimed her dispute began when she was caught filming burning tyres which were blocking a road to [location]. She claimed that, upon spotting her filming, armed men pushed her to the ground took her camera and mobile phone and brutally kicked her. However at her interview she gave a different account of events. She claimed that she had an argument with a man who told her to take a detour through [Suburb 1]. She claimed that after taking a photograph with her mobile phone the man asked her to get out of her car and, once she did, he tried to grab her mobile phone. She claimed that the man subsequently found a caricature of a Hezbollah leader, Nasrallah, on her phone and he angrily demanded to know if she was making fun of Nasrallah. She then challenged the man’s authority. She claimed that two other armed men came to see what was going on and she was warned that they had authority. She claimed that when she tried to recover her mobile phone one of the men started kicking her.
The delegate formed the view her claim that a caricature being discovered on her mobile phone is an important detail and found, if it had occurred, it would have been included in the visa application. He formed the view that she had fabricated the claim concerning the initial dispute with Hezbollah. He also formed the view that it was not plausible that a dispute over caricature on a mobile phone would have caused Hezbollah members to subsequently target the applicant in a sustained campaign of harassment, intimidation and physical violence, having taken into account the country information indicating Hezbollah do not target ordinary Lebanese citizens. He also noted that DFAT (in 2015) and the US Department of State (in 2016) reported that non-Shia critics of Hezbollah would not be at risk of harm unless they presented a direct threat to Hezbollah’s political power.
The delegate recorded that when asked about the delay in making her protection visa application, the applicant claimed her brother warned her not to go back because people were still looking for her. He also noted she claimed to have extensive injuries from being hit by the motorcycle, a twisted hip, cracked vertebrae and cuts to her arms and legs, which was not consistent with her medical evidence provided from [Dr A].
The delegate did not accept the applicant was stalked by Hezbollah from September 2014 to November 2015, or that the applicant was shot at by Hezbollah members, riding motorcycles in 2015, or that Hezbollah members were monitoring her brother’s house after she arrived in Australia. He found the particulars of her claim that she was hit by a motorcycle and shot at while crossing the street in February 2015 to be inconsistent and unconvincing. He formed the view she was unable to provide convincing testimony about the nature and extent of the injuries arising from the accident. He noted her oral evidence was inconsistent with the medical evidence provided by her treating doctor, [Dr A]. He found her claim that she continued to work at [Company 1] until November 2015 to be inconsistent with her claim that she genuinely believed she was being stalked by Hezbollah members who knew where she worked and had attempted to kill her in February 2015. He noted she did not apply for a visitor visa until 6 October 2015 and considered the delay in departing Lebanon did not support her claims that she had been stalked and threatened by Hezbollah. He noted that, despite claiming she fled to Australia in November 2015, she did not apply for protection until March 2016, when she claimed her brother warned her that people were still looking for her. When asked to explain this, he noted she claimed that the delay was due to her original intention to return to Lebanon. He found that the delay in her application for protection cast doubt on her claims to have been harmed, threatened and mistreated in Lebanon. He noted she claimed she did not know that she was able to apply for protection but he did not accept this evidence.
After making her review application the applicant provided to the Tribunal medical evidence dated 2 March 2021 indicating she was examined by [Dr B] in Tripoli in February 2015 and as a result of a “deliberate” motorcycle accident she suffered bruising and pain in her rib cage and right hip, and a fracture to her right pelvic bone.
The applicant also provided evidence from her treating doctors in Australia and radiological evidence recording that she has a history of disc disease, and cervical and lumbar spondylosis and arthrosis. A Health Summary Sheet dated 6 March 2021 from her Australian treating doctor records that she is married.
The applicant also provided a letter from her brother in Lebanon dated 8 March 2021 submitting the applicant’s claim to have suffered physical violence and attempted murder is true and that he warned her not to return to Lebanon because armed persons are still looking for her and it is unsafe for her to return.
The applicant also provided a letter from her former employer, [Company 1] advising she was employed as an [Occupation 1] in August 2014, and a bank statement, recording she received salary payments.
Hearing on 11 March 2021
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 March 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. The applicant’s representative also attended the hearing.
At the hearing the Tribunal explained to the applicant the requirements of the law. It also discussed with her the concerns arising from her written and oral evidence. The following is a summary of her oral evidence provided at the hearing.
The applicant told the Tribunal that her parents live in Beirut with her grandmother and also in the village with one of her brothers, who is unemployed. She has another brother living in Beirut who works as a [Occupation 3]. She lived with that brother. A third brother lives in northern Lebanon near Tripoli and works for a [specified] company. A fourth brother also lives in northern Lebanon near Tripoli. He had been working in a [specified] shop but is currently unemployed. The applicant’s son, who resides in Tripoli with his father, aged [age], works as a [Occupation 4]. The applicant has regular contact with her parents, brothers and son in Lebanon.
The applicant has two sons residing in Australia. The first came to Australia in 2014 as a visitor and was granted a prospective marriage visa in 2015. Her second son came to Australia in February 2016 as the holder of a partner visa. She confirmed that she came to Australia [in] November 2015 and applied for protection in March 2016, after the arrival of her second son.
The applicant holds a Bachelor [degree]. She studied at university from 2009 to 2013. Prior to travelling to Australia she lived in Beirut, for about a year and two months, with her brother and visited her grandmother in Beirut on weekends.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when she first feared harm in Lebanon. She indicated it was in September 2014 when she was harmed by Hezbollah near [location]. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she first decided to come to Australia. The applicant discussed in some detail the fear she felt after the motorcycle accident and the advice she received from her son in Australia that it would be good for her to come here to relax. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that it was important she answer the question asked and repeated its question regarding the timing of her decision to come to Australia. She indicated it was in March 2015, after the attempted murder. However she did not apply for a visitor visa until October 2015. The Tribunal asked why she waited seven months if it was the case that she feared serious harm. She indicated she spoke to her son in Australia. He was living with his parents-in-law and told her that she should apply for the visa when he had his own place. The Tribunal questioned whether he would have advised her to wait until he secured his own accommodation if it was the case that they were fearful for her life. She indicated he had no work and needed money before she could come to Australia. She later sought to clarify this evidence but adding that he did not get his permanent visa until March 2015 suggesting he needed the permanent visa in order for her to apply for the visitor visa. She reiterated he was living with his parents-in-law and needed his own accommodation.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant has claimed that men on motorcycles attempted to murder her. It asked her to provide details about this claim. Initially she indicated that on [date] September 2014 there was a murder attempt. She then corrected her evidence and indicated that in February 2015 she was hit by a motorcycle. She indicated that she had parked her car on a street in [Beirut]. It was about 15 minutes’ drive from her workplace and about 10 minutes from her grandmother’s home. The Tribunal asked if there were other people and cars in the vicinity. She indicated it was not particularly busy because it was sunset. There were other people around but not where she was standing. She parked her car, got out and went to cross the road when a bike hit her. She indicated there were two motorcycles and a man on the first motorcycle said “we’ll show you what we can do to you”. Then the second motorcycle hit her. The Tribunal asked what next happened. She indicated both motorcycles took off. She fell, a car stopped and the driver got out to help her.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if the motorcycle had stopped before the man warned her about what they could do to her. She indicated the bike was still in motion. The Tribunal asked how she could have heard the driver if he was still in motion, given the noise of two motorcycle engines. She indicated the motorcycle slowed down so she could hear him. The Tribunal asked for detailed particulars about what then happened. She indicated that the person who stopped offered to take her to hospital but she declined, indicating she was too scared to go to hospital. He then drove her to her grandmother’s. The Tribunal asked what happened to her car. She indicated that somebody else drove her car to her grandmother’s.
The Tribunal asked about the visit by the doctor to her home. She indicated that [Dr A] visited her at her grandmother’s home and attended to her cuts and bruises. The Tribunal asked why he visited the family home, given he is a [medical specialist]. She indicated he is their family doctor. The Tribunal noted that [Dr A] recorded that the applicant had been x-rayed and that she was diagnosed only with contusion (bruising) of the lower spine. It asked how she was x-rayed if it was the case she was too scared to visit certain hospitals. The applicant indicated that, when [Dr A] saw her the next day, he noted that she was not improving and had chest pain. He indicated he would need to refer her to another specialist. She then went to a specialist in Tripoli, [Dr B]. The Tribunal asked why she would have done that if she had been injured in Beirut, where there is medical assistance available. She indicated that [Dr A] did not refer her to the specialist in Tripoli, but she chose to go there because she knows that area better. The Tribunal indicated that it may have some doubts about this new evidence, given it did not appear to be consistent with [Dr A]’s report, and that this may raise concerns about the reliability of the evidence she had provided said to be from [Dr B]. It questioned whether she would have travelled to Tripoli if she was so injured. The applicant indicated that [Dr A] only wrote what he did; he is not a chest specialist. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s Australian medical evidence indicates only a problem with the applicant’s back and records nothing about the chest, hip or pelvis injury. It also noted that the applicant’s claim about visiting a doctor in Tripoli was first made to the Tribunal which may raise concerns about its veracity. She indicated the delegate did not ask her if she saw a doctor in Tripoli.

The Tribunal asked the applicant what she did after she was hit by the motorcycle. She indicated she went to her grandmother’s and she then returned to work. The Tribunal asked why she would return to work if she genuinely feared that she was being followed and the Hezbollah members knew where she worked. She indicated that she always lived in fear but she had to go to work. She was supporting her children in Tripoli.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to provide particulars about the first time she was harmed in Lebanon. She indicated in September 2014 she was on her way to work when she noticed a road near [location] was closed by Hezbollah. A Hezbollah member was diverting traffic through the [Suburb 1] area. She told him she could not do this because she did not know her way around and she needed to go to work. He insisted that she take the diversion. She started arguing with him but he insisted she take the alternate route. She asked him “please let me go through so I can go to work. I need to catch up with [clients]”. He indicated he did not care. At that point she took out her phone to send her boss a message, to explain why she was late and to notify clients. She then started filming the roadblock. The Hezbollah member told her to get out of the car and asked what she was filming. They started screaming at each other. Two other men came up and asked what they were arguing about. The first man told the other two men she was filming. The superior took her phone and started scrolling through her phone. He found a caricature from a television program, mocking leaders including Nasrallah. He asked if she was making fun of their leader. She started screaming at them and arguing with them.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if the Hezbollah members were armed and she confirmed that this was the case. It asked if she was scared of them. She confirmed that she was scared. It asked if it was the case that she was screaming and arguing with three armed Hezbollah members. She indicated when someone is really stressed this is what they do. She indicated that she was scared but she had to stand up to them and protect herself.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what then happened. She indicated they were questioning her and one Hezbollah member was kicking her on the leg. She then went off at him and said words to the effect “that’s enough. You are killing us.”. They said “you haven’t seen what we can do”. The Tribunal asked the applicant how she got away from the scene. She indicated she stood on the side of the road and asked for her phone so she could call someone to come and help her. She rang a friend. He came and led her through [Suburb 1]. The Tribunal asked what then happened. The applicant indicated she went to work but she had a nervous breakdown.
The Tribunal raised its concern that this evidence appeared different to earlier claims. The applicant indicated she had a different representative at the time. She told him what happened. She did not realise he had not written down her proper claims.
The Tribunal raised its concern about the applicant’s evidence regarding her encounters with Hezbollah, for example, in her written application she stated that she was first filming burning tyres in the street and then she was approached by Hezbollah. However it noted that she has since claimed her first encounter was when she was diverted by Hezbollah into the [Suburb 1] area. It explained that it may form the view these differences are significant and cast doubt on her claims. The applicant blamed her former representative.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her [employment]. She confirmed that she was the [Occupation 1]. It asked in that case why she would have clients. She indicated that they were not her clients; they were clients of the business. The Tribunal questioned why the applicant needed to film the blocked road and burning tyres. It asked why she could not merely advise her employer by text or a phone call that the road was blocked. The applicant indicated she needed to prove to her employer why she was running late; she could not just tell him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her travel to [Country 3]. She stated she went in November 2014, along with an aunt, a [Country 3] national, and stayed with her maternal uncle. She went as she was scared because she was being followed. She thought, if she stayed there for 10 days, they would forget about her. She claimed in the period September to November 2014 she was being watched, while at work and in coffee shops. She claimed that paper was thrown at her from a moving car and it had written on it “you’ll see what we can do to you”. The person in the car said the same thing. Also someone drew a skeleton on her car with a warning “we’ll show you”. Her nerves were shaken.
The Tribunal questioned why 10 days’ absence would make any difference if it was the case that she was being watched, followed and threatened in the ways she described. She indicated while she was in [Country 3] she realised she could bear the verbal threats, so she returned, but she did not anticipate that it would get to the point where they would hit her with a motorcycle. Also she could only take 10 days off work. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she did not seek protection in [Country 3] if she was so fearful of Hezbollah. She claimed she had to go back to work so she could support her children.
The Tribunal noted the applicant has claimed to be divorced. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she divorced. She indicated it was [in] February 2014. It asked her when she and/or her husband first decided they wanted to get divorced. She thought it was in September 2014. Noting this was after the divorce date the Tribunal asked again when the applicant first thought there were problems in the relationship. She sought to correct her evidence and indicated the problems started in 2013. The Tribunal asked her to describe the problems they were having. The applicant paused and then indicated it was family problems. She confirmed neither party has repartnered. She indicated they were married for 23 years. The Tribunal asked again about the problems leading her to decide she wanted to divorce. She indicated there were always problems but they got bigger in 2011 or 2012. She claimed she took the decision to separate.
The Tribunal questioned why, if it was the case the parties had problems and the applicant was considering divorce, her husband signed in September 2013 the Proxy Sale of an Estate, appointing her to represent him in relation to his estate in Tripoli. It noted this might suggest they were not about to separate or divorce. The applicant indicated at the time they were not separated and her husband was trying to show her he had good intentions. She indicated the Proxy Sale of an Estate meant that she would get the house if he died. She claimed that he has since sold the property.
The Tribunal raised its concern that the applicant remained in Lebanon, continuing to work from February 2015 to November 2015, and explained this might cast doubt on her claim to have been harmed and fear for her life in Lebanon. The applicant claimed she was scared but she had to work to get money. The Tribunal asked why she did not apply for the visitor visa to Australia earlier, around March 2015 when her son became a permanent resident, or alternatively why she did not return to [Country 3] to seek refuge, if she genuinely feared for her life. She indicated her son said he would find a way to get her out of Lebanon but from March 2015 until October 2015 he was living with his in-laws. Also she needed to get her paperwork together. She indicated she could not return to [Country 3] because her visa had expired and her uncle had no capacity to accommodate her. The Tribunal noted the applicant has claimed to fear serious harm in Lebanon and death by Hezbollah. It indicated it may form the view that if she was so fearful, her relatives abroad would have accommodated her and she would have sought to leave Lebanon as soon as possible. She indicated that her uncle could not accommodate her because he had his own family to support.
The Tribunal asked if she had any comment to make about the delegate’s view that it was not plausible that a dispute over a caricature on her mobile phone would have caused Hezbollah members to subsequently target her in a sustained campaign of harassment, intimidation and physical violence. She indicated that the image had come from a broadcast by a television company and Hezbollah burned that company down.
The Tribunal raised its concern with the applicant that, while claiming to have fled to Australia in November 2015 to avoid serious harm, she did not apply for protection until March 2016. It noted that she had indicated to the delegate she did this in March 2016 because her brother warned her that people were still looking for her but explained that it may have doubts about that claim. The applicant indicated that after she had been here for about six weeks her brother told her that they were still watching over the house and that he could not protect her. She then renewed her visitor visa application, thought about it and decided that there was no one at home to protect her. She went to a lawyer in February 2016 and he told her what she needed to do.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her current circumstances. She indicated that she works in a [factory], 20 hours per week and earns $800 per fortnight. She is also studying English and sometimes cares for her granddaughter. Her daughter-in-law is a [Occupation 5] and her son in Australia works as a [Occupation 6]. She no longer lives with them because she could not handle screaming babies. She lives by herself and pays her rent with her income and financial assistance from her children.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the country information, including the most recent DFAT report and the delegate’s reference, indicating Hezbollah does not target ordinary citizens such as herself and that non-Shia critics of Hezbollah would not be at risk of harm unless they posed a direct threat to Hezbollah’s political power. The applicant indicated it was not just about the caricature; she also argued with them about Sunnis and Shias. The Tribunal indicated it may form the view she is not a direct threat to Hezbollah’s political power. She indicated Hezbollah are ruthless. She has heard they recently murdered two women.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what she thinks will happen to her if she returns to Lebanon. She indicated that, in light of the current political situation and issues between Sunnis and Shias, she will live in fear. The Tribunal noted the applicant has several male relatives in Lebanon and asked why she would not be able to live with her brother, for example. She indicated Hezbollah live in his neighbourhood and Hezbollah will have people looking for her. She indicated her brother’s salary is now worthless because of the economic situation. He hardly has enough money to support himself.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it may not accept Hezbollah would be interested in her merely because she had a caricature of Nasrallah on her phone six years ago, or that it would expend any resources pursuing her. She indicated it was because she argued with them during the first incident in September 2014.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it may accept she has medical conditions but it may also be satisfied, as demonstrated by her own medical evidence from [Dr A], that her conditions can be managed in Lebanon. With respect to her claim to be single with no male protection, it noted her evidence that she had lived with her brother in the past. It also noted she has qualifications, work experience, and strong family connections and support such that it may find she can return to Lebanon and be securely accommodated and subsist. The applicant indicated her brother’s salary is hardly enough to survive and he would not be able to accommodate her.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if she had further claims to make or any other evidence to give before it closed the hearing. She indicated that she could not return to Lebanon because the economic situation is bad and people will think, because she had been in Australia, she has money and they will kill her. The Tribunal explained the country information does not indicate that returnees from Australia are killed because of a perception of wealth.
The applicant indicated that because of the protests, revolution and poor economic situation in Lebanon, people have no work and it will not be easy for her to find a job. She also referred to the explosion in Beirut which has led to instability.
The applicant indicated her first representative almost made her lose her right of review because he did not use the correct email address. She indicated that, 22 days after the decision was made, she attended the doctor and was told that she no longer had Medicare. She had not realised that her visa application had been refused. She called the lawyer and he told her the decision record had been sent to another email address. The Tribunal noted the applicant did not lose her right of appeal as it was made within time.
The applicant claimed that everyone is dying from coronavirus in Lebanon and there are inadequate hospital facilities. She also noted the country is at war because that is what Hezbollah wants. Also there is revolution in Lebanon. She does not know when the next bomb will go off. There is no safety in Lebanon.
Country information
The Tribunal taken into account the country information set out in the delegate’s decision record. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has also 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 this decision.
With respect to political opinion and criticism of Hezbollah DFAT reports as follows:
Article 13 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to express one’s opinion orally or in writing, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of association within the limits established by law. Lebanon has a diverse political landscape with a wide range of political views and ideologies reflected in its parliament and at other levels of government and society. While its political system ensures representation for its many sectarian communities, however, it effectively elevates communities over individuals and communal leaders over state institutions, which tends to impede the rise of cross-communal parties. Human rights observers have reported that political interference, including by powerful non-state actors, undermines the rule of law.
Authorities generally respect the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of assembly, although
protesters are required to apply for a permit ahead of demonstrations. While protests over a garbage crisis in 2015 led to mass arrests and police violence that caused hundreds of injuries, more recent assemblies have been more peaceful. In 2017, protesters organised demonstrations on issues including tax hikes, the extension of the parliament’s mandate, and the United States’ decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. While human rights groups reported some incidents of the use of excessive or indiscriminate force by security forces, particularly in response to protester violence at the Jerusalem embassy demonstrations, no deaths, grievous injuries, or large-scale arrests were reported. Security services reportedly beat and kicked a small number of protesters demonstrating outside parliament in June 2017. In July 2018, over 500 people demonstrated peacefully in Beirut in support of free speech and against the government’s monitoring of social media.
…
Hezbollah is a prominent political party in Lebanon. While its primary support base is
overwhelmingly in the Shi’a community, it has a strong national presence, demonstrated by the strong performance of its allies in the May 2018 elections.... Hezbollah runs its own economic, financial, and social services institutions; has its own judicial and internal security structures, including detention centres… It is a powerful player in Lebanon’s economy, politics, and media. It benefits from a domestic perception that it is relatively less corrupt than other parties or institutions.
Hezbollah exercises effective control over sections of Lebanese territory, particularly in parts of South Lebanon, southern Beirut, and parts of the Beka’a Valley: interlocutors have reported that, in these areas, Hezbollah’s influence and control exceeds that of the Lebanese state. According to local interlocutors, Hezbollah works to prevent the emergence of sources of power within the Shi’a community outside of the Hezbollah-Amal duopoly, which might represent a threat to its control. In addition to political activists, perceived adversaries include journalists seeking to report on ‘red line’ topics, including Hezbollah’s weapons, their relationship with security authorities, and their role in the Syrian civil war... Hezbollah does allow adherents of non-Shi’a religions to worship freely in the areas under its control.
International organisations report that Hezbollah uses various methods to obtain information
regarding its perceived adversaries, including informer networks and telephone monitoring. Independent NGOs working in Hezbollah-controlled areas have reported harassment and intimidation, including social, political, and financial pressures. According to local interlocutors, Hezbollah may first subject critics to societal pressure or persuasion, such as accusations on social media. The individual may subsequently be socially marginalised by being excluded from Hezbollah-provided services, including health and education, or economically marginalised, such as by having their business ‘blacklisted’. Hezbollah activists will only revert to direct threats, including of violence, if they feel their power is genuinely threatened.
DFAT is aware of cases in which state authorities have taken action against critics of Hezbollah. In one such case in August 2017, the Directorate of General Security (DGS) detained an activist due to his social media posts, which criticised Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria, and the Syrian and Iranian governments and their political allies in Lebanon. After his release, the activist reported that authorities harassed and threatened him not to engage in further criticism of Hezbollah and its allies. One independent Shi’a candidate in the 2018 parliamentary elections was hospitalised as a result of an attack that he blamed on Hezbollah.[1]
[1] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 19 March 2019, paragraphs 3.29 to 3.35
With respect to single and divorced women, DFAT reports:
DFAT assesses that the ease with which an individual is able to relocate internally depends to a large degree on their individual circumstances, including whether they have family or community connections in the intended area of relocation, and their financial situation. Internal relocation is generally easier for men and family groups. Single women, particularly those fleeing family violence, are less likely to have access to sufficient support services and are likely to face societal discrimination in the form of harassment, particularly in rural and more conservative areas.[2]
…
By regional standards, the Lebanese legal framework is considered progressive in relation to
[2] Ibid, paragraph 5.25
[3] Ibid, paragraph 3.53
employment: no legal restrictions limit women’s engagement in income-generating activities, the law does not distinguish between women and men in employment, and it provides for equal pay for women and men.[3]

With respect to religion, DFAT reports:
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.[4]
[4] Ibid, paragraph 3.14 to 3.16
With respect to returnees, DFAT reports:
DFAT understands it is not a crime for Lebanese citizens to seek asylum abroad. Information on conditions for failed asylum seekers who have returned to Lebanon is limited. DFAT understands, however, that no significant stigma attaches to this group and has no evidence to suggest they are subject to any particular official or societal discrimination. On return, a failed asylum seeker would only come to the attention of authorities if they had an existing stop order against them, or if they had committed a crime abroad of sufficient gravity for authorities to request an accompanied transfer.
A returnee would generally return to their home community or resettle in Beirut or another major city. Although Lebanese authorities do not provide support for resettlement, several NGOs do, including the Caritas Lebanon Migrants Centre, the Afro-Asian Migrant Centre, and the International Organisation for Migration.[5]
[5] Ibid, paragraphs 5.32 to 5.33
The delegate cited country information from DFAT’s 2015 Country Information Report on Lebanon, which was relevant during the timing of the applicant’s alleged difficulties with Hezbollah, from September 2014 to November 2015, indicating Hezbollah does not target ordinary Lebanese citizens and non-Shia critics of Hezbollah would not be a risk of harm unless they presented a direct threat to Hezbollah’s political power.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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.
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).
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.
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
The applicant presented to the Department her Lebanese passport. There is nothing to suggest that she has any different or additional nationality. The Tribunal therefore accepts that she is a national of Lebanon and assesses her protection claims against Lebanon as the receiving country.
Credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence
The applicant has claimed to be a divorcee who was first harmed by Hezbollah in September 2014. Her evidence regarding that incident, discussed in more detail below, has been inconsistent and evolving. The applicant has also claimed that she was subsequently stalked, threatened and intimidated, and in February 2015 she was the victim of an attempted murder when she was hit by a motorcycle. She has claimed that shots were fired at her on that occasion although this claim was not repeated in her oral evidence at her hearing. She has claimed her brother has warned her not to return to Lebanon because people are still looking for her. For the following reasons the Tribunal does not accept aspects of the applicant’s claims are credible or reliable.
In her written application, the applicant claimed that she was in dispute with Hezbollah members having been caught filming burning tyres blocking the road to [location]. She claimed that on being spotted filming, “armed men” pushed her to the ground, took her camera and mobile phone and then brutally kicked her. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal copy of the delegate’s decision record. It records that the applicant’s oral evidence provided at her interview differed with respect to this alleged event. She claimed that she was initially in an argument with a man who tried to divert her through [Suburb 1], a Shia suburb near [location]. She claimed that after taking a photograph using her mobile phone, he asked her to get out of the car. She claimed that when she was out of the car he grabbed her mobile phone and the man subsequently found a caricature of the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah on her phone and angrily demanded to know if she was making fun of Nasrallah. She claimed that then another two men came to see what was going on and one warned her what could happen to her as they were in authority. She claimed, when she tried to take her mobile phone back, they started kicking her.
The Tribunal notes that in her oral evidence at her hearing the applicant gave a somewhat different account of what happened in September 2014. She told the Tribunal she was on her way to work when a Hezbollah member was diverting traffic through the [Suburb 1] area. She indicated that she could not do this because she did not know her way around and she needed to go to work. He insisted that she take the diversion. She started arguing with him and pleaded that she be allowed to proceed so she could go to work but he did not care. She then took out her phone to send her boss a message to explain why she was late and to notify clients and to film the roadblock. The Hezbollah member told her to get out of the car and asked what she was filming and they started screaming at each other. This attracted the attention of two other men who came up and asked what they were arguing about. The first man told them that she was filming. She claimed the superior took her phone and found a caricature of Nasrallah. He asked if she was making fun of their leader. At the hearing she emphasised that she was screaming at them and arguing with them. She claimed one Hezbollah member was kicking her on the leg. She introduced a new claim that she then went off at him and said words to the effect “that’s enough. You are killing us”, to which they replied “you haven’t seen what we can do”. She claimed however that they returned her phone so she could call someone for help.
The Tribunal appreciates that the alleged event occurred over six years ago. However it notes that her account to the Tribunal differs to that provided to the delegate (which differed significantly to the written claims) and is somewhat embellished in that she now asserts that she argued and screamed at the three armed Hezbollah members. This was despite acknowledging to the Tribunal that she was scared of Hezbollah members. The Tribunal has some doubts that the applicant would have engaged with the three armed Hezbollah members in the manner she described at the hearing. It also notes she did not mention in the written application the Hezbollah member finding the caricature on her phone. It has taken into account her explanation for this, that her first representative omitted to include it in her written application. However it is of the view this is an important, highly relevant claim and it is not satisfied it would have been left out of her written application if it had in fact occurred. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant has embellished her oral evidence at the hearing to overcome the issue raised by the delegate, that Hezbollah does not target ordinary Lebanese citizens and non-Shia critics of Hezbollah would not be a risk of harm unless they presented a direct threat to Hezbollah’s political power. Overall the Tribunal is of the view the inconsistencies and embellishments in the applicant’s evidence cast serious doubt on the claim that she came to the adverse attention of Hezbollah in September 2014.
The Tribunal is also concerned that aspects of the applicant’s evidence regarding the incident in February 2015 have been manufactured. It finds her description of the warning given by the man on the moving motorcycle “we’ll show you what we can do to you” problematic. The Tribunal notes that the applicant was on a main road and there was the noise of at least two motorcycles in the vicinity, and the motorcycle was in motion. Yet she claims to have heard this message. She claims the second motorcycle then hit her and then both motorcycles took off. Despite being asked at least twice what then happened, and asked at the end of her hearing if she had any other claims, she did not repeat the claim that she was shot at. The Tribunal is of the view she did not repeat this claim because it did not happen. It has concluded the applicant has manufactured this significant claim.
The Tribunal notes [Dr A] in January 2016 reported that the applicant was involved in an accident and was hit by a motorcycle and, having been x-rayed, he found that she suffered severe contusion of her lumbar sacral spine. The Tribunal is satisfied [Dr A]’s evidence is reliable. The Tribunal notes [Dr A] refers to the incident being an accident. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal new medical evidence dated March 2021, six years after the incident, said to be from [Dr B], claiming the applicant went to his clinic in Tripoli in February 2015 after being injured in “a motorcycle deliberate accident and she was suffering from bruises and pains in the rib cage as well as bruises, pains and wounds in the right hip…(and) a simple fracture of the right pelvic bone”. For the following reasons the Tribunal has serious doubts about the reliability of this new medical evidence. First, the claim she consulted a doctor in Tripoli in 2015 was first made to the Tribunal at her hearing in 2021. The Tribunal has serious doubts that the applicant would have travelled from Beirut to Tripoli, a distance of over 3000km, to consult a doctor if she had the injuries described, such as a fractured pelvis. The Tribunal is also of the view that [Dr A], who records he treated the applicant for 6 months after the injury, would have recorded those further particulars if they were true. The Tribunal is of the view the applicant has provided this new medical evidence dated March 2021 to overcome the issues raised by the delegate about the reliability of the applicant’s oral evidence about her injury. It considers this new medical evidence is unreliable. It is also highly concerned that it demonstrates a willingness on the applicant’s part to obtain manufactured evidence to overcome issues of concern with her claims, in order to achieve her desired migration outcome.
The Tribunal also notes the applicant’s medical evidence raise concerns about her claims first made, that she treated at home by [Dr A] as she was too fearful to attend a hospital or clinic in parts of Beirut because they are run by Hezbollah. It notes [Dr A] records that she was in fact x-rayed after she was involved in a motorcycle accident. When this was raised with her, rather than clarify where she was x-rayed, she claimed [Dr A] said he could not treat her and he would need to refer her to a specialist. He did not indicate this in his medical report. The Tribunal formed the view the applicant was evading the question. It has concerns that she has claimed to fear attending certain clinics or hospitals because they are run by Hezbollah, to embellish her fear of Hezbollah.
Having considered all the medical evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that in early 2015 the applicant suffered a back injury as the consequence of a motorcycle accident. It is not satisfied the injury was the consequence of a deliberate attempt to harm the applicant. It finds this casts significant doubt on her claim to have been stalked, followed or threatened by Hezbollah because of an incident in September 2014. It is of the view her evidence that the February 2015 accident followed on from on earlier clash with Hezbollah to be manufactured. Accordingly it is not satisfied that in February 2015 the applicant was approached, threatened and deliberately hit by men on motorcycles. It finds the applicant has manufactured this claim.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim that from September 2014 to November 2015 she was stalked and threatened by men who, from time to time, would watch her, approach her, call out at her from cars, throw at her paper with written warnings, and mark her car with skeletons and warnings. It has considered her claim that her employer advised her to leave work until it was safe to return. However it notes she was away for only 10 days, casting doubt on the claim she went there because she was fearful of the threats. It notes she did not apply for protection in [Country 3] despite claiming to fear for her life. While this trip occurred before the alleged murder attempt in February 2015, it notes the applicant has claimed she fled to [Country 3] because she feared for her life. It finds, if that was the case, her explanations for not applying for protection in [Country 3] and for returning to Lebanon, that she thought they would forget about her, and she realised she could bear the verbal threats, and she had to go back to work so she could support her children, to be unpersuasive. It is of the view if it genuinely was the case that she feared Hezbollah would seriously harm her she would have considered applying for protection in [Country 3]. It does not accept her employer advised her to go to [Country 3] for 10 days to flee Hezbollah and the risk of serious harm. It finds she has manufactured this claim.
The Tribunal is of the view the applicant’s willingness to return to Lebanon from [Country 3] demonstrates she did not fear serious harm in Lebanon. It has concluded her willingness to return casts significant doubt on her claims to have come to the adverse attention of Hezbollah, to have been physically attacked by Hezbollah in September 2014 and to have subsequently been stalked, threatened and intimidated. It has taken into account the letter from her brother dated 8 March 2021 claiming that armed persons are still looking for the applicant. There is no explanation provided as to how he knows they are looking for her. The Tribunal is not satisfied the letter contains persuasive details. Given the doubt cast on her claims about the September 2014 and February 2015 incidents, the Tribunal finds the brother’s assertion unpersuasive and gives it no weight. The Tribunal is also of the view that, if her son in Australia genuinely believed her life was at risk, he would not have told her she needed to wait several months to apply for the visitor visa until he organised his own accommodation and employment. The delay in making the visitor visa application casts serious doubt on her claims to have been stalked, threatened and intimidated since September 2014 and deliberately harmed in February 2015.
The applicant has claimed her visitor visa to Australia saved her life. Yet she did not apply for protection for over 5 months. The delegate recorded that she indicated she initially intended to return to Lebanon casting doubt on her claim to have left fearing serious harm. The Tribunal notes she claimed her brother warned her not to return because people were still looking for her however the Tribunal has doubts about the reliability of that evidence, given the lack of detail and explanation as to how he knows they are in fact looking for the applicant. Given it concerns the Tribunal has concluded the applicant manufactured this claim to overcome the concern about the delay. The applicant has also claimed she did not know about protection visas. The Tribunal does accept this given her evidence she has previously been an applicant for protection in [Country 1]. It finds her delay in applying for protection in Australia is significant and casts serious doubt on her claims to have been harmed and to fear harm in Lebanon.
Having considered all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant came to the adverse attention of Hezbollah and was harmed in September 2014. It is not satisfied she argued with them and accused Hezbollah of “killing us”. It finds she has manufactured these claims. It is not satisfied she was stalked, threatened or intimidated from September 2014 until she travelled to Australia. Nor is it satisfied there was an attempt on her life in February 2015.

Having made findings that significant claims have been manufactured by the applicant, the Tribunal has serious concerns about the reliability of her evidence and finds she is not a credible witness.
Given the above findings the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has any adverse profile in Lebanon, with Hezbollah or any other person or organisation. It is not satisfied she is of interest to Hezbollah, or that she has been or will be harmed by Hezbollah or any other organisation or anyone else if she returns to Lebanon on the basis of her political opinion or imputed political opinion. It is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant faces serious harm if she returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future because she has an adverse profile with, or is of interest to, Hezbollah or any other organisation or person.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim to be at risk of harm as a single, divorced woman in Lebanon. It has also considered her claim that, as a single, divorced woman with no male protection in Lebanon, the government cannot protect her from thugs and militia like Hezbollah. The Tribunal notes she has provided a divorce certificate from Lebanon however it also notes she is described as being married in her Health Summary Sheet prepared by her Australian doctor. It has considered her reason for her husband signing the Proxy Sale of an Estate dated 14 September 2013 appointing her to represent her husband in relation to an estate in Tripoli. It has some concerns that this is not consistent with her evidence that the parties were considering divorce and had been having problems since 2013, 2012 or 2011. It notes she did not expand on the problems they were having leading to the decision to divorce. Nor did she indicate she was uncomfortable talking about this issue; she merely appeared to have no particulars to disclose. While the Tribunal notes she has provided a divorce certificate it has had concerns as to whether she is genuinely separated from her husband. It has considered whether this claim has been contrived to strengthen her claim to fear harm in Lebanon. Ultimately it accepts she is divorced from her husband as it is satisfied she lived with her brother in Beirut for about a year before she came to Australia.
The applicant has brothers and an adult son in Lebanon, and she lived with one of her brothers before she came to Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has no male support in Lebanon. It has taken into account her claim that her brother cannot afford to support her but it notes he works in [specified industry] as a [Occupation 3]. It notes she has tertiary qualifications, and extensive work experience, including as an [Occupation 1] and [Occupation 2]. It notes she has back pain but has been able to work in Australia in a [factory]. Accordingly the Tribunal is satisfied that, if the applicant returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future, she will be supported and accommodated by her family, and she has the qualifications and professional employment experience to secure some form of employment such that she will be able to subsist. It is not satisfied she will suffer emotional, psychological and financial hardship, or will otherwise suffer serious harm, if she returns to Lebanon. Nor is it satisfied she will have to live alone as she has a brother with whom she has lived in Beirut the past and it is not persuaded she will not be able to do this if she returns to Beirut in the foreseeable future. Nor is it satisfied she will not be able to return to work in the area she used to work as it has not accepted her claims to have been harmed and come to Hezbollah’s attention in that area. The Tribunal also finds there is no real chance of her facing harm from thugs and militia such as Hezbollah in the foreseeable future.
The applicant has claimed to fear harm in Lebanon because of the current political situation and the issues between Sunnis and Shias. She did not expand on this claim at the hearing. Taking into account DFAT’s most recent country information report the Tribunal notes relationships between religious groups in Lebanon are generally peaceful, and violent clashes with religious overtones have been less common in Lebanon in recent years. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm on the basis of her Sunni Muslim religion if she returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future.
The applicant has claimed that if she returns to Lebanon from Australia she will be perceived to be wealthy and will be killed. The Tribunal has considered the DFAT report about returnees which does not indicate that there is any risk this will happen to the applicant. There is no country information before the Tribunal supporting this claim. It is of the view this claim is merely speculative. It is not satisfied there is a real chance that the applicant will be killed on her return to Lebanon because she will be perceived to be wealthy.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s general claims that she will be harmed in Lebanon by the economic situation, protests, revolution, bombs and coronavirus. The Tribunal has found the applicant will be supported and accommodated by her family and that she has qualifications and experience such that she will be able to secure some form of employment, as she has done in the past, and will be able to subsist if she returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future. Her fear of another bomb in the future is speculative. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant intends to participate in any political activities if she returns to Lebanon in the foreseeable future. It is not satisfied there is a real chance of harm because of protests or revolution. She did not provide independent country information or evidence confirming people are being targeted in Lebanon, by the authorities or other parties, and harmed by coronavirus. There may be concerns about the spread of the virus however, the Tribunal notes that there is nothing before it to indicate any intention by the state or any other actors to cause harm to persons because of coronavirus. The Tribunal is satisfied, with respect to coronavirus cases in Lebanon, there is no systematic and discriminatory conduct by any party, and therefore, any harm from the virus would not amount to persecution. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm because of the economic situation, protests, revolution, bombs or coronavirus.
Overall the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm for any reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) if she returns to Lebanon. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance she will suffer serious harm for any of the reasons claimed, or for any other reason. Accordingly, it is not satisfied she has a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection criteria
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 she may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion.
For the reasons set out above, relying on its findings on whether there is a real chance of serious harm, the Tribunal has considered all the evidence in relation to the complementary protection criteria and does not accept, on the evidence provided, that there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm. There is no evidence to indicate she will suffer arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty or torture. There is no evidence to suggest she will be arbitrarily detained or suffer corporal punishment. While it accepts she may be perceived to be a single, divorced woman in Lebanon the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has family support and accommodation, qualifications and employment experience such that she will be able to subsist in Lebanon and will not suffer cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that 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 she will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
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
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.
…

[2021] AATA 2009

19 March 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness