1729757 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming complementary protection on the grounds of his homosexuality and a feared persecution in Lebanon. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims regarding his sexuality, his past relationship, and the threats he alleged he would face upon return to Lebanon.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm if removed to Lebanon. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's credibility, particularly in light of generalised and inconsistent evidence, a lack of documentary support for his claimed long-term relationship, and anonymous adverse information provided to the Department. The Tribunal was guided by Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant country information.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be lacking in credibility. While the applicant claimed his family and society considered homosexuality an insult punishable by death, his responses regarding his personal feelings upon realising his sexuality were inconsistent with this claimed societal pressure, stating he felt happy and that it was "quite normal" for him. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's evidence often detailed the general prevailing views of his society rather than specific personal experiences or statements. Furthermore, the Tribunal found little documentary evidence to support the claimed long-term relationship, and the evidence from a social worker, while acknowledging threats against gay individuals and the social worker himself, also noted instances where individuals in similar situations entered heterosexual marriages out of fear and later blamed former representatives. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

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