1716219 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Lebanese national. The applicant claimed to be an Alawite Shia Muslim who feared persecution by radical Sunnis in Lebanon due to his ethnicity, religion, and imputed political opinion. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Lebanon, the applicant would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information. The applicant's migration history revealed a complex procedural background, including previous visa refusals, unsuccessful judicial review, and a significant delay in lodging the protection visa application. The applicant asserted that as an Alawite, he was imputed to be a supporter of the Syrian Assad regime and therefore targeted by radical Sunnis in Lebanon, particularly in the Akkar region where his village is located. He claimed that while the Alawite population in Tripoli was protected by armed forces, those living outside this area, like himself, were vulnerable and that Lebanese security forces were ineffective in providing protection.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. It noted that the applicant's claims of harm were not substantiated by independent evidence, and there were inconsistencies in his account. The Tribunal also considered the country information which indicated that while there were tensions, the Lebanese authorities were capable of providing effective protection, and that freedom of religion was constitutionally guaranteed. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm upon return to Lebanon, particularly given his ability to relocate to safer areas within Lebanon or to Syria, and the lack of evidence of specific threats against him.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.