1807317 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 4387

1807317 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 4387 (21 August 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1807317

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Lebanon

MEMBER:Shahyar Roushan

DATE:21 August 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 21 August 2019 at 4:45pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – Federal Court remittal – inter-religious sect relationship – Sunnite – Alawite – domestic violence incidents – personal harm – unrelated to any Convention reasons – passage of time – perpetrator no longer motivated to harm the applicant – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Background, claims and evidence

2. The applicant is a [age]-year-old Sunni Muslim and a national of Lebanon. She was born in [Town 1], Akkar. She is single. Her parents [and number of siblings] reside in Lebanon. She has two older [siblings] who reside in Australia. The applicant first arrived in Australia on a visitor visa [in] April 2011, staying for a period of two months. On 27 July 2012, the applicant was again granted a visitor visa and re-entered Australia [in] August 2012. She applied for a protection visa on 5 November 2012.

3. In her application for a protection visa and a statutory declaration provided in support of her application, the applicant made the following claims:

4. In 2012, she was completing her [number] year of a [Qualification 1] at [Institute 1] in [Suburb 1], Tripoli. During this time, she met a boy named [Mr A]. He offered to help her with her studies and they developed a ‘short relationship that turned violent.’

5. The applicant’s brother, with whom she lived, found out that [Mr A] was an Alawi Muslim and ‘the [relative] of the biggest thug and leader of the [Suburb 2] Allawi (sic) in Tripoli’, [Mr B]. Her brother was worried about the relationship. He was also concerned about the difference in their beliefs, the tensions between Sunnis and Alawis and the problems that could be caused if people were to find out about the relationship. The applicant agreed with her brother and ‘tried to desperately avoid [Mr A]’ and stop her relationship with him. When she told [Mr A] that she could no longer be in a relationship with him, he became very upset and displayed ‘a completely different side’.

6. In the two weeks prior to her departure from Lebanon, she saw [Mr A]’s ‘possessive, violent side’. He began doing ‘unimaginable things’ such as constantly following her in his car, threatening her that if she did not agree to be with him he would harm her and her family, repeatedly telling her that if he could not have her nobody could and that he was ‘determined on ruining her life’. She had to stop associating with her friends as they were intimidated by [Mr A]’s ‘violent abrupt ways’. Her home phone would ring constantly at night until eventually she had to unplug her phone. He and his friends threatened her on many occasions that she ‘will be his’. On one occasion, he drove by and stopped in front of her house in [Suburb 3]. He also fired a gun in the air and sped off, leaving behind a ‘massive speed mark’. On another occasion, he was waiting for her in the lobby of her brother’s apartment building. He verbally abused her, grabbed her by the throat and pulled her up against the wall while choking her. He said to her ‘nobody plays games with me, you will be with me whether you like it or not’. He let go of her when a man from the building intervened.

7. She fears being kidnapped or killed by [Mr A], his friends and his associates. The authorities cannot protect her because they cannot enter [Suburb 2] and his [relative] is the ‘biggest rebel’ in North Lebanon. No one would dare to ‘get on the bad side’ of this corrupt family, including the authorities.

   The interview

8. The applicant attended a Departmental interview on 10 December 2012. Where relevant, the applicant’s evidence at the interview is referred to below.

   The delegate’s decision

9. The delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa on 20 December 2012. The delegate found that the harm feared by the applicant was personal and did not relate to any Refugee Convention grounds. The delegate was not satisfied that the authorities are unable or unwilling to protect her. Nor was the delegate satisfied that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm.

   Review application

10. On 15 January 2013, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision.

11. On 31 July 2013, the applicant’s then representative made a submission to the Tribunal in support of the application for review. The submission reiterated the key claims made by the applicant and contended that due to the ‘domestic violence incidents’, the applicant fears returning to Lebanon. There is no protection for victims of domestic violence under Lebanese laws and victims are not generally assisted by the police when they file a complaint. Domestic violence continues to be considered a family matter and the police force is reluctant to intervene. It was submitted that state protection would be withheld from the applicant for the Convention reason of her membership of a particular social group, namely ‘young women in Lebanon who are or have been in inter-religious sect relationship’ (sic).

12. The submission referred to country information in relation to domestic violence in Lebanon, as well as past decisions by the then Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT).

    The first hearing

13. The applicant appeared before the RRT and presented oral evidence at a hearing held on 8 August 2013 (the RRT hearing). Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence at that hearing is referred to below.

14. On 6 May 2014, the RRT affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

15. On 4 June 2014, the applicant made a request for Ministerial intervention under s.417 of the Act. On 6 July 2015, the then Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection decided that it would not be in the public interest to intervene.

16. On 10 June 2014, the applicant applied to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for a review of the decision of the RRT. [In] March 2017, the Court dismissed the application and the applicant appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Australia. [In] 2018, Besanko J made orders setting aside the orders of the Federal Circuit Court, quashing the decision of the RRT and directing the Tribunal to determine the applicant’s review application according to law.

17. The matter is now before the presently constituted Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) pursuant to the order of the Court.

    The second hearing

18. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her new registered migration agent, [Mr C].

19. In a submission received by the Tribunal on 12 April 2019, [Mr C] referred to the procedural history and aspects of the first Tribunal's decision, and essentially reiterated the applicant’s claims. In addition, it was submitted:

    …

    29 The families who do not accept inter-religious marriages commonly deal with vigilante justice. Similarly, men who have relationship disputes or family issues with their partners resort to vigilante justice as family and the status of women are governed by religious laws and courts rather than the Constitution.

    30.      Lebanese Alawites live mostly in [a specified] neighbourhood of Tripoli, and in 15 villages in the Akhar region. The clashes between pro-Syrian Alawites and anti-Syrian Sunnis have haunted Tripoli in the past, and still haunt it.

    31.      The conflict is fanned by the influence of Hezbollah in the regional conflict with the Syria war which flared up while the Applicant was in Australia. The influx of Syrian refugees has strengthened Hezbollah within Lebanon.

    32.      The women in Lebanon suffer discrimination. This has worsened since the ways with Syria. The writer of the article "Another woman murdered in Lebanon, as rights' groups call for action" dated 22 January 2018 states that recent improvements in law with regard to women's rights still fail to uphold the rights of women in Lebanon due to the superior status of males in that country. The writer clearly states that the Government should do more to stop the violence against women. It should be noted that "women" does not necessarily refer to married women, as the article refers to a 15 year-old girl who committed suicide after being forced to marry.

    33.      The differences between Sunni and Shia is likely to continue and the protection of citizens in the midst of differences in government is a matter of concern, especially when the Applicant says she has escaped from Lebanon to seek protection for herself. People who leave their own country for non-refugee related reasons may, nevertheless, acquire a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country following their departure. An economic migrant may, for example, become a "refugee sur place" when there is an armed conflict or violent change of regime in that person's country of origin, or when the government or other actors in that country begin to inflict human rights violations on the community of which that migrant is a member.

    (sic)

20. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 April 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s brother-in-law, [Mr D], and an acquaintance, [Mr E]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

21. Following the hearing, [Mr C] made a submission addressing some of the issues raised with the applicant during the course of the hearing.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    The relevant law

22. 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, the applicant 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.

23. 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

24. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

    owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

25. 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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).

26. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Analysis, findings and reasons

27. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

28. The Tribunal found the applicant’s oral evidence at the second hearing to be largely consistent with the written and oral evidence she has provided throughout the process.

29. The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal that she was born in Akkar, Lebanon and resided with her family in [Village 1] until approximately 2008 or 2009, when she commenced her tertiary studies in Tripoli. In order to attend university, she moved in with her brother, [Mr F], who resided with his own family in the Tripoli suburb of [Suburb 3]. The applicant continued to reside in Tripoli until August 2012 when she came to Australia. During the time she was residing in Tripoli, the applicant regularly travelled back to her family home in [Village 1] on weekends and during study breaks.

30. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant met [Mr A], who was studying at the same university, in early 2012. Their initial friendship grew into a romantic relationship, which lasted three to four months. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant initially was unaware of [Mr A]’s Allawi faith and his membership of the [specified] family. Once she was informed of these facts, she became concerned for a number of reasons and decided to end the relationship. The Tribunal accepts that this resulted in a change in [Mr A]’s behaviour towards her. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that, between June 2012 and August 2012, [Mr A] harassed, intimidated and threatened the applicant on a regular basis; he followed her in his car and he drove by and stopped in front of her house. On one occasion he fired a gun in the air and sped off, and on another occasion he physically assaulted her and attempted to choke her in the lobby of her building. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept the applicant’s evidence at the first hearing that, sometime in 2013, the applicant’s sister-in-law’s sister had observed [Mr A] together with a few others near the applicant’s brother’s house. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant had found these incidents very frightening and distressing.

31. However, as discussed with the applicant at the hearing, a number of changes have occurred since her departure from Lebanon in 2012. These changes, at least partly, relate to the relatively significant passage of time since her last encounter with [Mr A]. Whilst the Tribunal has accepted that he reacted obsessively and violently towards her in the aftermath of the relationship and that he might have pursued his ‘sickly obsession’ in the few months following her departure from Lebanon, it would be reasonable to assume that [Mr A]’s circumstances might have also changed in the intervening period. Since [Mr A]’s sighting by her sister-in-law in 2013, the applicant has had no knowledge of or contact with him. [Mr A] knew where she resided in Tripoli, as well as her telephone number. According to the applicant’s evidence, in the months following her departure from Lebanon, [Mr A] never approached or contacted the applicant’s brother or her sister-in-law to convey any threats or messages or to enquire as to the applicant’s whereabouts. The applicant did not claim that the harassing calls to her brother’s house had continued in the months following her departure from Lebanon.

32. The applicant informed the Tribunal that her brother, [Mr F], sadly passed away in April 2013 following an illness, and [Mr F]’s wife and children no longer reside in Tripoli. The applicant’s parents [and number of siblings] continue to reside in [Village 1]. The applicant has no family members who reside in Tripoli. Moreover, she also confirmed her previous evidence that she had never told [Mr A] where the rest of her family resided. Indeed, none of the applicant’s family members or friends in Tripoli or Akkar had ever been approached or harmed by [Mr A], his friends or his associates. Even if the Tribunal were to accept, which it does not, that [Mr A] continues to have an adverse interest in the applicant at the same level as in the past, as it was put to her at the hearing, if she were to return to Lebanon and reside at her home in [Village 1], it would be highly unlikely that [Mr A] could or would be able to find her. The applicant told the Tribunal that if [Mr A] wanted to find out where her family resides, he could have done so and that his problem was with her and not with her family. She said [Mr A] and his ‘group’ can get to anyone. The applicant’s own evidence indicated that [Mr A] was serious about the relationship, his behaviour demonstrated how much he cared about her and this is why she is still fearful. Indeed, if [Mr A] was so serious about the relationship, if his obsession was so persistent and if he considered the applicant to be his problem, it would be reasonable to assume that the applicant’s sudden absence from Tripoli in 2012 would have prompted him to at least make some attempt to contact her family members or seek information about her over the past eight years if he could easily locate them. He does not appear to have done so.

33. The applicant also raised the possibility that [Mr A] might have found out that she is overseas. However, she did not explain how he could have come to know this information. In any event, even if the Tribunal were to accept that [Mr A] had somehow found out that she had travelled, it would be reasonable again to expect that he would make some enquiries as to her whereabouts and when she would be returning to Lebanon. He did not do so. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr A] has demonstrated any serious intention to pursue or harm the applicant since at least 2013.

34. At the second hearing, the applicant acknowledged that, given the passage of time, [Mr A] may now be married and not interested in her. Nevertheless, she added that she had ended the relationship because they adhered to different faiths and ‘may be’ he was motivated to harm her because of her religion. At the first hearing, the applicant’s then representative had submitted that what had transpired between the applicant and [Mr A] was ‘domestic violence’ and it was not about religion. Nevertheless, she had also submitted that the applicant feared persecution for the reason of her Sunni religion and imputed political opinion. [Mr C] also submitted that the harm the applicant faces in Lebanon is ‘in the societal and political landscape of disputes within the ethnic communities in Lebanon which is exacerbated by the influx of refugees from Syria’ (sic). The evidence before the Tribunal, however, does not support these views.

35. Throughout the process, in describing what [Mr A] had communicated to her in his threats, the applicant never mentioned that [Mr A] had invoked religion or that religion was a reason behind his behaviour towards her. Indeed, according to the applicant, he had told her that she had broken his heart and that he wanted them to be together at any cost. The applicant’s evidence suggests that [Mr A] had not shown animosity towards or targeted other Sunnis during or in the aftermath of the relationship. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr A] was or would be motivated to harm the applicant because of her religion or her imputed political opinion. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim that [Mr A] is an Alawi Muslim and all those who work in Beirut airport are also Shi’a. She extrapolated that all Shi'as are somehow connected and it’s possible that someone at the airport could notify [Mr A] of her return to Lebanon. The Tribunal considers this claim to be farfetched and based on highly speculative conjecture.

1. In his submissions to the Tribunal, [Mr C] referred to the differences between Sunnis and Shi’as in Lebanon, ‘the clashes between pro-Syrian Alawites and anti-Syrian Sunnis in Tripoli, the growing influence of Hezbollah or the influx of Syrian refugees’. [Mr C] did not clarify whether he was suggesting that these factors support a view that [Mr A]’s motives may have been religious or that, more generally, these circumstances place the applicant at risk of harm. The Tribunal has already found that [Mr A] was motivated by personal reasons in the past. The Tribunal has also found that he is no longer motivated by these reasons to harm the applicant. The Tribunal has also found that [Mr A] was not and would be motivated to harm the applicant because of her religion or her imputed political opinion. The Tribunal does not accept that the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Alawis, the influence of Hezbollah or the presence of Syrian refugees in Lebanon played any role in [Mr A]’s actions towards the applicant. The Tribunal does not accept that the factors referred to by [Mr C] place the applicant at a real chance of being seriously harmed or at a real risk of being significantly harmed in Lebanon. In reaching this finding, the Tribunal has had regard to the most recent DFAT report in relation to Lebanon, stating:

   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. 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.[1]

   [1] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report – Lebanon, 19 March 2019.

2. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will face serious harm in Lebanon for the reason of her religion, imputed political opinion or any other reason. The Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will face serious harm in Lebanon for reasons arising from her religion or imputed political opinion.

3. The Tribunal has considered the evidence given at the hearing by the applicant’s two witnesses. [Mr D], an Australian resident, recounted his own experiences in Lebanon. He told the Tribunal that his own daughter from a previous marriage travelled to Lebanon in 2009 and she was kidnapped three days later. She was [age] years old at that time. He later found out that she had been forced into a marriage. In 2011, he received information that she was in Tripoli and spent a lot of time and resources to secure her escape. Finally her husband agreed to divorce his daughter. He said he has not been back to Lebanon ever since.

4. [Mr E] told the Tribunal that he is a ‘[Occupation 1]’. He resided in Lebanon from the mid-seventies until 1989, when he returned to Australia. Since then, he has visited Lebanon on three occasions: in 1996, 2002 and 2014. He became aware of the applicant’s situation in March 2019 when she approached him in a state of distress. [Mr E] spoke generally about the situation in Lebanon and noted his knowledge of the ‘hatred’ between different sects and religions in the country. He said in the early 1980s there was an attempt to kidnap his mother. Women in Lebanon have no protection and they are vulnerable. The applicant is in real danger and her fears are real. There is a possibility that she could be kidnapped, tortured or killed if she were to go back. 

5. Having considered the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that [Mr A]’s motivation in harming the applicant in the past was personal and not related to any Convention reason, including religion, ethnicity (as proposed by [Mr C] in his post hearing submissions), political opinion, or membership of any particular social group, such as women in Lebanon or any subset of this group, or any other social group apparent on the face of the evidence. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr A] continues to harbour an intention to pursue or harm the applicant for any personal or Convention related reason. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will be harmed for the reason of her past short relationship with [Mr A]. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that she will be pursued, located or seriously harm by [Mr A], his friends, his associates, members of his family, including [Mr B], Alawis, Hezbollah and Shi’as for any Convention related reason, including religion and membership of a particular social group, if she were to return to her home area of [Village 1] in Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the reasons already provided, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant will face significant harm by [Mr A] or anyone else for the reasons provided if she were to be removed from Australia. 

6. The applicant stated at the hearing that her family in Lebanon do not know the reason why she has applied for a protection visa. She said she had not disclosed the reason because they are strict and they would have ‘killed’ her if they knew about the relationship. When it was put to her that her brother knew and he was protective of her, she said her brother had told her that he would keep it a secret. When it was put to her that it was of concern that she had never raised this claim previously, she said she did not know she had to disclose this. When it was put to her that she had told the Tribunal that she was not fearful of her family, she said this was because her secret had been buried with her brother.

7. In his oral submissions at the hearing, [Mr C] stated that the applicant was not claiming to fear serious harm from members of her family. Rather it was ‘an issue of anxiety.’ He explained that, if she were to return to Lebanon after eight years, she may have to explain her situation and she feels anxious. It was submitted that the applicant is being supported by her sister and brother-in-law here in Australia and they do not believe that she would be at risk of harm by other family members. [Mr C] stated that the applicant does not claim that she would be harmed by members of her family in Lebanon. In his post-hearing submission, [Mr C] reiterated that the applicant is not claiming that she will be harmed by family members. He clarified that the applicant’s family are under the impression that she is staying in Australia on a visa arranged by her brother-in-law. If she were to return to Lebanon, there may be a degree of animosity over what she had done and her ‘future without marriage’, but she ‘does not expect the family to harm her in any vigilante style.’ The Tribunal appreciates that the applicant may be concerned and anxious. However, on the basis of the evidence before it, including [Mr C]’ submissions, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will face serious harm for a Convention reason by members of her family in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant will face significant harm by members of her family in Lebanon if she were to be removed from Australia. 

8. The evidence given by the applicant and her witnesses, as well as [Mr C]’ submissions, broadly referred to tension, instability and sectarian violence in Lebanon. There is no persuasive information before the Tribunal to suggest that the tensions, the sporadic violence, the lack of general security and any instability the applicant may be concerned about is faced by her personally. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the general security situation in Lebanon would expose the applicant to a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.

9. Under s.36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal is satisfied that the tensions, lack of general security and the instability the applicant may be concerned about are faced by the population generally and not by her personally. The Tribunal finds that there is no real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for reasons arising from these circumstances.

10. After considering all of the applicant’s claims, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal does not accept that, if the applicant were to return to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, there is a real chance that she will be harmed for the reason of her race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of any particular social group. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

11. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied 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 be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a)-(e) of the definition of torture in s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer harm that would involve the infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, that is intentionally inflicted on a person or harm that would involve pain or suffering, intentionally inflicted, by an act or omission that could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature, such as to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment in s.5(1). Nor is it satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that she will suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in s.5(1), which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. The Tribunal is not satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer arbitrary deprivation of her life or the death penalty. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

12. 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 criteria in s.36(2).

    DECISION

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

    Shahyar Roushan
    Senior Member