1726816 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Lebanon, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal affirming the refusal to grant him and his family protection visas. The applicant's claims for protection stemmed from alleged threats by drug lords with political influence, stemming from his prior refusal to transport drugs and subsequent reporting of the individual involved to authorities, leading to that individual's arrest. He also claimed fear of being killed if returned to Syria, though his country of reference for protection claims was Lebanon.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a "refugee" as defined by section 5H, or otherwise eligible for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). This required determining if the applicant held a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in Lebanon.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding drug lords and his past interactions with them. It found that while the applicant had refused to transport drugs and reported the individual involved, leading to that individual's arrest, this past event did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in section 5J(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided evidence of ongoing threats or a real chance of persecution upon return to Lebanon. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he was unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of Lebanon, nor that he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant and his family protection visas, concluding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act, nor as a member of the same family unit under section 36(2)(b) or (c).