1713262 (Refugee)

1713262 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 4562 (31 October 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:1713262

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Lebanon
MEMBER:Nathan Goetz
DATE:31 October 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 31 October 2022 at 5:17pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – religion – Christian – fear of kidnapping – physical assault – fear of killing – Hezbollah – state protection – return visits to Lebanon – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2; r 1.12
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 dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant’s protection visas.
The applicants were represented in the review application by registered migration agent 1281149 Mr Hugh GASH.
BACKGROUND
The visa applicants identify themselves as [Applicant A] and [Applicant B], a married couple who are Lebanese citizens presently located in Australia.
On 9 November 1998 [Applicant B] was granted a tourist visa to travel to Australia and she arrived in Australia holding this visa [in] December 1998. She departed Australia [in] June 1999.
On 28 February 2002 [Applicant B] was granted a tourist visa to travel to Australia and she arrived in Australia holding this visa [in] March 2002. She departed Australia [in] August 2002.
On 15 June 2007 [Applicant B] and [Applicant A] were granted tourist visas to travel to Australia. They arrived in Australia holding these visas [in] July 2007. They departed Australia [in] October 2007.
On 13 December 2010 [Applicant B] and [Applicant A] were granted tourist visas to travel to Australia and they arrived in Australia [in] December 2010. They departed Australia [in] June 2011.
On 13 February 2013 [Applicant B] and [Applicant A] were granted tourist visa to travel to Australia and they arrived in Australia [in] April 2013. They departed Australia [in] March 2014.
On 19 March 2015 [Applicant B] and [Applicant A] were granted tourist visas to travel to Australia and they arrived in Australia [in] April 2015.
On 6 April 2016 [Applicant B] and [Applicant A] applied for protection visas. They were granted bridging visas on 8 April 2016 to regularise their migration status while their protection visa applications were considered. [in] April 2016 their tourist visas ceased.
On 12 May 2017 [Applicant A] participated in a delegate interview regarding his protection claims. [Applicant B] did not participate in the delegate interview. On 9 June 2017 the delegate refused to grant the protection visas.
On 22 June 2017 [Applicant B] and [Applicant A] applied to the Tribunal to review the refusal decision.
On 12 November 2020 the applicants were invited by the Tribunal to appear at a Tribunal hearing on 11 December 2020.
On 11 December 2020 [Applicant B] and [Applicant A] appeared at the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the English and Lebanese languages. The registered migration agent attended the Tribunal hearing by telephone. The applicant’s Australian citizen daughter also attended the Tribunal hearing.
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.
Sections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in reg 1.12 of the Regulations.
Mandatory considerations
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.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
Protection visa application form – [Applicant B]
The protection visa application form identifies that [Applicant B] received assistance from the migration agent to complete the form. [Applicant B] identifies as [an age]-year-old female who was born in [Village 1] [in District 1], North Lebanon, Lebanon. She claims citizenship of that country and provided a copy of her Lebanese passport. She has been married to [Applicant A] since [September] 1972 and together they have [number] children. [Number] of their children remain in Lebanon and one of their children is in Australia.
[Applicant B] declared that she was not making her own claims for protection. She was included in the protection visa application on the basis that she is the spouse of [Applicant A]. She declared that the information she supplied was correct. The applicant’s migration agent confirmed at the Tribunal hearing that this was the case.
Protection visa application form – [Applicant A]
The protection visa application form identifies that [Applicant A] received assistance from the migration agent to complete the form. [Applicant A] identifies as [an age]-year-old male who was born in [Village 1] [in District 1], North Lebanon, Lebanon. He claims citizenship of that country and provided a copy of his Lebanese passport. The details of his marriage and children accord with the details in [Applicant B’s] protection visa application form.
[Applicant A] declared self-employed work in Lebanon from [specified year] to April 2015 as [business 1]. He declared his Lebanese residential addresses from October 2007 to December 2010, June 2011 to March 2013, and March 2014 to April 2015 as [Village 1], North Lebanon.
[Applicant A] answered the questions in the protection visa application form about his reasons for claiming protection. He sought protection in Australia so that he did not have to return to Lebanon.
He wrote that he left Lebanon after facing an assassination attempt when he was working in a [specified] site. Some Syrian Muslim [workers] tried to kill him. He was in charge of the [project]. He noticed that two of the Myrian Muslim workers were trying to store some small [boxes] between [the project supplies]. He had doubts about what was happening, and he saw some electrical wires coming out of the [box]. He was high on a ladder. He asked those two works what they were doing and told them that they could not place explosives there. Both of the workers violently pushed the ladder and the applicant fell from the ladder.
One of the workers kicked him and said that the applicant was a ‘Christian dog’ and said that the applicant ‘did not deserve to live.’ Some workers from another rushed the applicant to the [named medical] Centre. This occurred [in] February 2012 and he was discharged from the hospital [in] March 2012. [Applicant A] noted that he has undergone more than five operations for his legs and arms and that it was a miracle he survived. He went to report ‘the criminals’ to the police security forces in [District 1] but no one cared because the political leader of [District 1] supported the Syrians in Lebanon. He noted that when he went to the police station after he had been discharged from hospital the officers laughed and said that it was good that the applicant was still alive, the applicant noted that the Syrians in Lebanon currently outnumber the Lebanese citizens.
The applicant thought that he would face kidnapping and killing as this happens in Lebanon where ‘the crimes perpetrated by the Muslim Syrians are increasing daily.’
[Applicant A] wrote that he ran away to Australia where he stayed for one year. He then went back because he did not want to breach the conditions of his visa. When he returned to Lebanon, he faced kidnap and death threats by ‘the same terrorist people because they knew that I reported them to the police.’ The applicant had no choice but to return to Australia to save his life, but he again returned to Lebanon because he did not want to breach his visa conditions. He wrote that [in] April 2015 he ran away from Lebanon to Australia after facing death threats and decided not to return to Lebanon fearing for the life of both himself and his wife.
The applicant believes that he will be kidnapped and killed by the same Muslim Syrians and their supporters because he reported them to the Lebanese Police about their terrorist act of placing explosives. He does not believe that the Lebanese authorities can and will protect him because they are unable to even protect themselves. He wrote that ‘Lebanon is likely occupied by the Muslim Syrian terrorists’ and the ‘armed militias kill Lebanese and foreigners in Lebanon’ on a ‘daily basis.’ He wrote that he could not relocate within Lebanon because ‘the terrorists can reach him anywhere in Lebanon’ because ‘he had witnessed some of their terrorist activities’ and reported them.
Provided with the protection visa application forms were each applicant’s Lebanese identity card and family registration card. Also provided was a letter dated 4 February 2013 from [a named surgeon] who identifies as an orthopaedic surgeon of [two named universities]. He wrote that [Applicant A] had surgery on his left him and his left elbow for a fracture with ‘fixation applied’ on [a day in] February 2012.
[Applicant A] provided the Tribunal with a written statement prior to the Tribunal hearing. The statement noted additional reasons why he could not return to Lebanon. He claimed that the Lebanese President had declared to the media words to the effect that ‘Who is overseas can stay overseas, who wants to leave the country can leave: Lebanon is definitely going to have a sectarian civil war and the Lebanese people are going to hell.” The applicant wrote that the reason hehind this deterioration is the terrorist Hezbollah organisation who is committing kidnapping, killing and bombing. He detailed the explosion at the Port of Beiruit on 4 August 2020. He wrote that Hezbollah stores explosives and no one knows about the timing and location of the bombing plans. All the explosions were due to the fact that the country was under control of Hezbollah which was supported by the Islamic Shiite Iranian government. Hezbollah controls the Lebanese President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Parliament. He noted comments made by a Hezbollah MP in the Lebanese Parliament. [Applicant A] wrote that anyone who can leave Lebanon must leave because Hezbollah’s purpose is to turn Lebanon into an Islamic Shiite State belonging to Iran, as the Hezbollah leader declared in the media. [Applicant A] wrote that he and his wife cannot go back to Lebanon because they will definitely be killed at any time there.
Interview with the delegate
[Applicant A] participated in an interview with the delegate which lasted approximately an hour. During this time, [Applicant A] answered various questions from the delegate. Relevant to the Tribunal’s assessment of the protection claims and the review application, [Applicant A] provided the following relevant evidence.
[Applicant A] gave evidence consistent with his written protection application form about the claimed harm he suffered in Lebanon. He confirmed that after the incident when he fell from the ladder, he never saw his assailants again.
He gave consistent evidence about attending the police station to report the assault, although suggested that the person in charge of the police station did not want to take any action because that person supported the presence of Syrians in Lebanon.
Concerning [Applicant A’s]work history, he said that he ‘actually stopped working’ in his [business] in 2012, despite his protection visa application form detailing that his work ceased three years later in April 2015, which was at the time he left Lebanon. He told the delegate that he and his wife were presently working in his daughter’s business in Australia and noted that there was no pension scheme in Lebanon meaning that people needed to work to survive.
Concerning [Applicant A’s] residential history, he confirmed that he lived at the same residential house from [a specified year] until he left for Australia in April 2015, but later said that he was staying with friends and was hiding, despite not claiming in the protection visa application that he relocated and hid during his time in Lebanon.
Relating to what happened to him when he returned to Lebanon (where he wrote in the protection visa application that he ran away from Lebanon [in] April 2015 ‘after facing death threats and decided not to go back to Lebanon’), he claimed that he received a threat of kidnapping if he remained in the area. He said that the people who assaulted him sent a person to him who advised the applicant to not stay because the assailants would come and him the applicant and his wife. He later said that this was one of the workers who assaulted him, despite earlier telling the delegate that he had not seen these people since the assault in 2012. He claimed that this occurred at his home, despite maintaining that he was ‘moving around.’
Concerning the fact that, according to the delegate, in both the applicant’s 2013 and 2015 visitor visa application he claimed that he was coming to Australia to visit family, had a stable home and was working (which appeared to be inconsistent with [Applicant A’s] protection claims), [Applicant A] questioned what else he could say in order to come to Australia. He denied completing the visitor visa applications himself but did not know who completed them.
In corroboration of his claimed injuries as a result of the assault, [Applicant A] referred to a medical report that he obtained from a doctor. This was provided to the delegate shortly before, during or after the delegate interview (the records are unclear) and discloses that [Applicant A] had surgery to his left him and left elbow for fracture [in] February 2012. The surgeon signed this letter on 4 February 2013.
Tribunal hearing
During the Tribunal hearing, [Applicant A] provided answers to a number of questions concerning his protection claims, and other matters. He asserted that the contents of his protection visa application form, and what he said to the delegate was true.
The Tribunal utilised the s 424AA procedure for some of the concerns it had, although not all the concerns considered by the Tribunal were ‘information’ to enliven the obligations under s 424AA of the Act. In any event, relevant to the Tribunal’s findings, [Applicant A] provided the following evidence.
[Applicant A] agreed with the Tribunal’s summary of his migration history and accepted the proposition that he had travelled to and from Australia from Lebanon many times.
When asked specifically when it was that the applicant found out that he could apply for a protection visa, [Applicant A] said that it was after his last arrival in Australia (April 2015) and his visitor visa was about to expire. He further said that it was when his visitor visa was about to expire that he knew he needed to claim protection and could not return to Lebanon. He told the Tribunal that when he arrived in Australia in April 2015 it was his intention to not return to Lebanon and that he hoped to find some way to stay in Australia. He claimed that he did not know he could lodge a protection visa until someone told his daughter about this possibility.
Concerning the claimed threat, he received in 2014 during his last return to Lebanon, he identified that the threat was made by one of the workers who assaulted him, and that it occurred in the town square about 300 or 400 metres from his home. He confirmed that he had not been threated on any other occasion. He claimed that he reported this threat to the police and identified that he had reported the previously assault to the police as well. He confirmed that there had never been an attendance by anyone at his home. When asked why [Applicant A] would attend again on the police in 2014 to report the threat when they did not take his previous report about the assault in 2012, he said he did that because there was no one else to report the threat to.
Concerning what appeared to be inconsistent evidence about whether [Applicant A] remained in his family home during his time in Lebanon, or whether he was moving around and ‘hiding,’ [Applicant A] said that he remained in his home living in the same village but did not leave and was ‘hiding in his basement.’ He said that the assailants did not come to his home because they did not know where he lived, and he did not move to another place because he had nowhere else to go.

Regarding what [Applicant A] said to the delegate about the need for he and his wife to work as there was no pension in Lebanon, and the fact that he and his wife were working in Australia with their daughter, the Tribunal queried whether the applicants fabricated the claimed assault and threats in Lebanon because [Applicant A] had been injured at work and was no longer in a position to continue with his employment, and desired to live in Australia with his daughter. [Applicant A] disputed he had done this.
Concerning the inconsistency about who had the threats to him in 2014, [Applicant A] said disputed that he said to the delegate it was one of the assailants who came to his home and threatened him. He said that he told the delegate that the assailant made a threat in the town square and that any inconsistency was due to ‘translation problems.’
Concerning the fact that the applicant had arrived in Australia in April 2015, but not lodged the protection visa until 22 June 2017, the applicant said he did not know about it.
Concerning why the applicant did not lodge a protection visa after he arrived in Australia March 2013 and instead returned to Lebanon, he said he did not know about the protection visa. When asked if he had made inquiries about staying in Australia, he said no because he ‘did not know about it.’
Concerning his failure to detail the second time he attended the police station in 2014 in his protection visa application, [Applicant A] disputed that he fabricated this attendance and put his failure to detail this second attendance in the protection visa application form due to being ‘stressed out.’
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Tribunal considered all the evidence it had, including what was included in the Department file, the Tribunal file, and what was said at the Tribunal hearing.
The issue in this case is whether either the applicants are ‘refugees’ or meet the ‘complementary protection’ criteria, or whether they are members of the same family unit of a person who is a ‘refugee’ or meets ‘complementary protection’ criteria.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decisions under review should be affirmed.
What is the country of reference?
There is no dispute that the applicants are citizens of Lebanon with no right to enter and reside in any third country. The country of reference for the protection visa assessment is Lebanon.
Was [Applicant A] harmed in Lebanon as claimed?
The Tribunal accepts on the basis of the medical letter that the applicant had surgery on his left hip and left elbow for fracture and that he had a surgical procedure to remedy this [in] February 2012.
However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was injured by two workers as claimed, and is not satisfied that the subsequent claimed threats, or reporting to the police occurred.
The Tribunal observes that [Applicant B] did not make her own claims for protection. Presumably it was on this basis that she was not invited by the delegate to an interview. At the Tribunal hearing, [Applicant B] confirmed that she was not advancing her own claims for protection. To the extent that there may be an argument that [Applicant B] would have been able to possibly corroborate the claims made by [Applicant A] through oral evidence, the Tribunal does not draw any adverse inference against the applicants’ credibility because they did not seek to have [Applicant B] give oral evidence.
In any event, any evidence that [Applicant B] could have given would not have been able to overcome the deficiencies in [Applicant A] evidence or overcome the Tribunal’s concerns about the delay in applying for a protection visa and return to Lebanon despite what the applicants claimed had occurred in 2012.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants lodged a protection visa for reasons not connected with Australia’s protection obligations. The Tribunal comes to this conclusion for the following reasons.
Delay in applying for a protection visa, and return to Lebanon
The Tribunal does not accept that if [Applicant A] was injured as he claimed in February 2012, he would arrive in Australia [in] March 2013 and remain in Australia until [March] 2014 and not apply for a protection visa. The Tribunal does not accept that if the claims were true, the applicants would not explore visa options to remain in Australia and instead return to Lebanon in March 2014. The Tribunal is not persuaded that because the applicant ‘did not know’ about protection visas in Australia he would not explore his visa options here, and instead return to Lebanon.
Further, when the applicants return to Australia [in] April 2015, they delayed lodging a protection visa application until April 2016, approximately 12 months after their last arrival. Again, the explanation about the applicants not considering their visa options until close to the end of their visas is inconsistent with the claimed threat of harm that [Applicant A] claimed to have received during 2014.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the delay applying for the protection visa, and the return of the applicants to Lebanon, demonstrates that the claims about past harm and fear of future harm are manufactured.
Inconsistent evidence about who and where the 2014 threat was made and inconsistent evidence about whether [Applicant A] ever saw the two assailants again
[Applicant A’s] provided little specific detail in the protection visa application concerning the threats made during the most recent return to Lebanon. It was in the delegate interview that he claimed the threat occurred in 2014.
The Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence about the threat is that it is inconsistent. Having listened to the delegate interview, it is clear that [Applicant A] initially told the delegate that he did not see either of the two assailants after the February 2012 attack. He told the delegate that the threat was made at his house by a person who was ‘sent’ by his assailants. Later in the interview, he claimed that it was one of the assailants who came to his house and threatened him. This can be contrasted to the oral evidence [Applicant A] gave at the Tribunal hearing, where the threat was now made by one of the assailants at the village square. Given [Applicant A] only claimed that there were two instances of harm, namely the assault in 2012 and the threat in 2014, the Tribunal views the inconsistent evidence about the 2014 threats as fundamentally different.
The Tribunal is not persuaded by [Applicant A’s] explanation that what he meant by telling the delegate that he had not seen his assailants again meant that he had not seen the assailants again until he saw one of them in 2014. Rather, the Tribunal is satisfied that the confused nature of the evidence is due to the fact that the claimed threat was fabricated, and [Applicant A] had forgotten what he had told the delegate by the time of the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal also assesses that [Applicant A] told the delegate that he did not see the assailants after his assault in 2012 and forgot that he had made this concession before claiming that it was one of the assailants who threatened him in 2014. The Tribunal does not accept that if there was any truth to what [Applicant A] was saying about his experiences in Lebanon there would be such inconsistency in his evidence.
Failure to detail second attendance on police station after 2014 threat in initial protection visa application
The protection visa application form makes it quite clear that the applicant was required to detail whether he sought help within Lebanon after he had been harmed. [Applicant A] declared that he had, but only referred to a single attendance on police after his assault in February 2012. Although [Applicant A] referred to ‘facing death threats’ in 2014 when he was back in Lebanon, he did not declare that he had also attended upon police after the threats. He did not claim to the delegate to have reported the 2014 threat to police.
The Tribunal is not persuaded by [Applicant A] explanation that he failed to detail this second attendance because he was ‘under stress.’ Rather, the Tribunal’s assessment is that the applicant failed to detail this second attendance on the police because he fabricated that at the Tribunal hearing in order to lend credibility to his claim that he would not be protected by the Lebanese authorities upon his return to Lebanon. The Tribunal also suspects that the applicant believed that telling the Tribunal that he unsuccessfully reported the 2014 threats to police would lend credibility to his claim that the threat actually happened.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the evolution of the applicant’s evidence about whether he reported the 2014 threat to the police demonstrate that the claimed attendance on the police in 2014 is not true, and that this demonstrates that the applicants have a flexible approach to the truth. In combination with the other concerns that the Tribunal has about the credibility of the claims, the Tribunal ultimately concludes that the claims have been manufactured in their entirety in order to achieve a migration outcome.
Inconsistent evidence about residential history / hiding and employment
[Applicant A] claimed that he did not work after the assault in February 2012 yet declared employment in the same role until April 2015 in his protection visa application. He variously claimed that that he resided at the same address from [a specified year] until April 2015 yet was also in hiding (apparently either with friends in the same village or in his own home). He claimed in his 2013 and 2015 visitor visa applications that he was working with stable accommodation and employment, which, if his protection visa application form is to be believed, is not true. [Applicant A's] explanation that he had to provide this information in order to get a visitor visa to Australia suggests to the Tribunal that the applicants have a flexible approach to the truth in order to achieve migration outcomes.
The Tribunal struggles to accept that the applicants would not be able to provide consistent evidence about something as basic as where they lived in Lebanon, when [Applicant A] employment ceased (if it did), and if [Applicant A] was ‘in hiding with friends’ as he claimed to the delegate, where he lived, and how long he lived there for, that information would have been included in the protection visa application form.
The Tribunal’s assessment is that [Applicant A] became aware of the absurdity of the information contained in the protection visa application form that he resided in the same place despite his claimed fear of his assailants, and then manufactured his claims about ‘going into hiding’ at friend’s places. Then, when it became apparent that there was an issue about him being ‘in hiding’ yet being at his home when one of the assailants came to him to make a threat in 2014, [Applicant A] sought to shift his evidence to suggest he was out at a village square when this threat was made. The Tribunal is satisfied that this shift in the evidence is attributable to the claims were manufactured and [Applicant A] was making up the evidence ‘on the hop’ during the course of the delegate interview and Tribunal hearing.
In combination with the other concerns that the Tribunal has about the credibility of the evidence given in support of the protection claims, the Tribunal concludes that there is no truth to the claims that [Applicant A] was attacked by assailants or threatened by anyone during his last visit to Lebanon.
Claims concerning the Lebanese security situation
Separate to the applicants’ claims about the assault upon [Applicant A] and threats made to him and his family as the basis for their protection claims, the applicants raised in the protection visa application form the threat of ‘kidnapping and killing’ that is ‘currently happening in Lebanon where the crimes are perpetrated by Muslim Syrians’, and that ‘Lebanon is occupied by the Muslim Syrian terrorists and the armed militia kill on a daily basis both Lebanese and foreigners in Lebanon.
[Applicant A’s] written statement provided to the Tribunal, where he quoted the President of Lebanon stating that ‘Lebanon is definitely going to have a sectarian civil war and the Lebanese people are going to hell’ because of the terrorist Hezbollah organisation, and suggestion that the 4 August 2020 explosion at the Port of Beirut, and other explosions were due to the country being under ‘control of the terrorist Hezbollah organisation supported by the Islamic Shiite Iranian Government’ also raised claims quite separate from his own experiences with claimed harm and threats of harm.
As advised to the applicants at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal was obliged to consider the contents of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Lebanon. So far as relevant to the applicants claims that there is ‘kidnapping and killing’ in Lebanon, or that ‘Lebanon is occupied by Muslim Syrian terrorists,’ the Tribunal views these claims as demonstrating that the applicants have an antipathy to Muslim asylum seekers, noting the DFAT country information report assesses that the mass influx of Syrian refugees into Lebanon since 2011 has placed considerable strain on the Lebanese health system, and that limited economic opportunity in Lebanon has been exacerbated by the influx of displaced Syrians. The Tribunal is not persuaded that Lebanon is occupied by Muslim Syrian terrorists.
To the extend that there may be tensions between displaced Muslim Syrians presently in Lebanon and the local population, the Tribunal observed to the applicants that there has not been any return to large-scale inter-religious conflict in Lebanon since the signing of the Taef Accord. To the extend that there may have been killings or kidnappings in Lebanon, the Tribunal is not satisfied these risks are not faced by the population in Lebanon generally, but that in any event, Lebanon has the Internal Security Forces (ISF), a police and security body, tasked with maintaining public order and counterterrorism and that this provides reasonably security to the population. The Tribunal observes that no country can guarantee absolute safety to its citizens. There is no persuasive evidence that Lebanon’s security situation is ‘on the brink of civil war’ and the Tribunal’s assessment of the remarks cited by the applicant (assuming those remarks are an accurate record of what was said), were political hyperbole.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the current security situation in Lebanon, generalised violence, risk of kidnapping, or political tension that exists in that country or any of the concerns that the applicants have about Lebanon these factors will be faced by them personally. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk the applicants will suffer significant harm in Lebanon as a result of lack of general security and instability. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the general security situation in Lebanon would expose the applicants to a real chance of serious harm due to their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
CONCLUSION
Refugee
[Applicant A]
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm to the applicant in Lebanon due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Therefore, the applicant is not a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
[Applicant B]
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm to the applicant in Lebanon due to her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Therefore, the applicant is not a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection
[Applicant A]
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.
Therefore, the applicant is not a person who satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
[Applicant B]
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm.
Therefore, the applicant is not a person who satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Member of the same family unit
[Applicant A]
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a member of the same family unit of a person who is a ‘refugee’ or meets the requirements of ‘complementary protection’ and holds a protection visa.
Therefore, the applicant is not a person who satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.
[Applicant B]
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a member of the same family unit as a person of a person who is a ‘refugee’ or meets the requirements of ‘complementary protection’ and holds a protection visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Nathan Goetz
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.
…

[2022] AATA 4562

31 October 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Standing