1818624 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 2309

1818624 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2309 (21 April 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1818624

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:21 April 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 21 April 2023 at 11:12am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – Federal Circuit Court remittal – previous claim on ground of religious conversion refused and affirmed – conversion accepted but fear of harm rejected – anonymous allegations given no weight – late claim as member of particular social group – bisexual/homosexual/man who has sex with men – fear of harm from family, community and extremist groups – social and sexual activities in Australia – credibility – brief, undetailed and inconsistent claims and evidence – written statement from claimed lover provided but no oral evidence – physical and mental health – general political, security and socio-economic conditions – country information – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2)(a), (aa), 65, 438(1)(b), 424AA

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASE

SZGIZ v MIAC [2013] FCAFC 71

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

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 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visa on 12 May 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 20 November 2014. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal (Tf 1419699 Doc Id 2120995).

3. The matter was remitted from the Federal Circuit Court on the basis that the Department purported to notify the Tribunal that s 438(1)(b) applied to certain documents, the existence of the notification was not disclosed to the applicant by the Tribunal, and the document subject to the notification was relevant or potentially relevant to the issues arising on review.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 March 2023 and again on 13 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of interpreters in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

9. 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.

10. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Lebanon or whether there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Lebanon. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Notification under s. 438(1)(b)

11. There is a notification on the department file that information was provided to the department in confidence.

12. That this notification was not disclosed or provided to the applicant was the basis for the remittal from the Court.

13. At the first hearing I explained to the applicant that my initial assessment was that the information had been provided to the Department in confidence, I provided him with a copy of the notification and invited him to comment on it. He did not have a comment. I put the gist of the information subject to the notification to the applicant pursuant to s. 424AA as set out in more detail below.

14. Having considered the information and the notification, and having sought comment from the applicant on this, I find that the information referred to in the s.438(1)(b) notification was disclosed to the Department in confidence. I have therefore handled this information consistently with s. 438. I have put the gist of the information to the applicant for comment pursuant to s. 424AA.

    Request to have witness appear and the second hearing

15. Prior to the first hearing the applicant told Tribunal staff that he would provide details for witnesses soon. He did not do so.

16. Towards the conclusion of the first hearing the applicant said that if I was not satisfied about his claims about his sexuality, he could ask his lover, [Mr A], if he would be willing to come to another hearing to give evidence in support.

17. I asked why he had not done this already and referred to the fact that the hearing invite allowed him to nominate witnesses and he had said to staff that he would provide witnesses soon. He responded that he had to ask [Mr A] for his permission as it was a private thing. I noted that he could have done this prior to the hearing and indeed he appeared to have anticipated he would do so. He repeated that he had to ask permission and it was a private thing.

18. I noted that his claims to be bisexual/homosexual/a man who has sex with men had been disbelieved by the delegate and former Tribunal, so he had been on notice that this was in issue and asked again why he had not asked this person if he was willing to attend the hearing scheduled. The applicant responded again that it was a personal matter, and he would have to ask first.

19. I noted that I was not inclined to hold another hearing because the applicant had been on notice that this was in issue and had had every opportunity to have witnesses attend and had elected not to do so despite earlier indicating he may. I had clearly expressed to the applicant concerns that I had with his evidence. I said that I would however provide time for him to give me a statement from this person as well as the photographs he had referred to and any other documents. The applicant was provided with time to do so and did provide photographs and a brief statement from [Mr A].

20. After considering this evidence I decided that I should hear evidence from his claimed lover, [Mr A], to determine whether that evidence assisted in establishing the applicant’s claims. I decided to do this to afford the applicant every opportunity to demonstrate his claims.

21. The applicant indicated prior to the second hearing that [Mr A] would not be attending the second hearing. A Tribunal officer made contact with the applicant and explained the importance of the Tribunal speaking with [Mr A]. The applicant said that [Mr A] may have work or something else.

22. [Mr A] did not attend the second hearing. At that second hearing I noted that I had wanted to speak with [Mr A] and the applicant about their claimed relationship. The applicant said that [Mr A] was at work and did not want to speak about these things because it was personal. He said it was something they did not want shared or made public and [Mr A] did not want to come.

23. The applicant did say that he and [Mr A] had recently travelled to Melbourne together. I asked what they had done in Melbourne and the applicant said it was for relaxing.

24. I have considered the applicant’s claimed relationship with [Mr A] further below.

    Migration and procedural history

25. The applicant travelled to Australia on sponsored visitor visas in 2007, 2008 and 2010. On this last visit he lodged the first protection application.

26. The applicant first sought protection in November 2010. He claimed at that time to have converted from his birth religion of Islam to Roman Orthodox Christianity in Australia in June 2011. He claimed to fear harm from his father, other relatives, his community and Muslim extremists.

27. This claim was rejected by the delegate. The applicant sought review at the Tribunal which accepted the applicant was a convert but found no real chance of serious harm on return. This decision was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court. The applicant sought Ministerial Intervention. The Minister declined to intervene.

28. The applicant was able to make a further application for protection on the basis outlined in SZGIZ v MIAC [2013] FCAFC 71.

29. In this second application for protection in 2014, the applicant reiterated his claims that he feared harm because of his religious conversion. He stated that an additional basis for his fear of return was because he was bisexual and had had a sexual experience with a man some two years prior, and since that time had visited gay clubs with a sense of belonging.

30. The delegate accepted the applicant was a religious convert but did not accept that the applicant was bisexual or had sex with men as claimed, finding that the applicant’s evidence about this claim lacked credibility.

31. The previous Tribunal accepted the applicant was a religious convert but did not accept that the applicant was gay or bisexual, also concluding that the applicant’s evidence about this claim lacked credibility. 

    Lack of representation

32. Before me the applicant claimed that he was in a weak position as he was not represented by a lawyer. I appreciate that the applicant may feel this way. However, I note that his application to the Department was assisted by a lawyer. I note also that the applicant is reasonably well educated, has lived in Australia for many years, and was engaged with the review process, attending the hearings, giving evidence, and providing submissions and supporting information. The review process is difficult for some applicants, but I do not accept that the applicant was particularly disadvantaged by the lack of representation before this Tribunal.

    Claims

33. The applicant was born in Tripoli. His father is [Age] years old and is a Muslim, his mother is [Age] years old and is an Orthodox Christian. They live in a village [Time] minutes from Tripoli, Lebanon. His [sister] lives between [Country 1] and Lebanon with her husband, and the applicant’s [brother] lives in Australia and is now an Australian citizen. He has an aunt and uncles and cousins from his mother’s side in Australia as well as an uncle and cousins from his father’ side. The applicant studied [courses] at several universities in Lebanon. He did not work formally in Lebanon but worked in Australia in a [Workplace] for a number of years before he was issued with a bridging visa with no work rights, when he stopped working and was supported by his aunt and brother.

34. He was born a Muslim but renounced Islam and was Baptised as a Roman Orthodox Christian in June 2011.

35. He explained to the delegate at interview in October 2014 that his cousin in Australia told someone from his village that he had converted. People in his village were asking about his conversion and the applicant fears harm from his father and people in his village.

36. At the interview he also said that he fears ISIS which operates in the North of Lebanon and is known to target Christians.

37. He has always been curious about making love to men but was unable to act on his urges as it was forbidden in his country and in Islam. He has always secretly enjoyed occasional hugs and kisses on the cheek from men and he would feel excited at this contact but was confused.

38. Since coming to Australia he has been feeling extremely liberated and began to explore his sexuality and came to the realisation that he is attracted to women as well as to men.

39. In Australia he has dated a girl for three months.

40. He met [Mr B], an attractive [Country 2] man around 2012. They had coffee and then went out to [Venue 1]. The applicant described in very specific detail their sexual encounter at [Mr B’s] house. After that night the applicant frequently visited various clubs in Sydney where he experienced the feeling of belonging. He had come to terms with his bisexuality and accepted it openheartedly as a result of the opportunities Australia had given him.

41. At interview with the delegate the applicant claimed he had had sex with [Mr B] a number of times over the period of a month and had also had sex with two Thai lady boys (transgender or transsexual persons) and a Lebanese man. He met these people at clubs on Oxford Street such as [Venues 1 and 2].

42. He realises that his bisexuality may offend some religious people, but he believes God is accepting and he is God’s creation.

43. He fears his extended family, Islamic extremists, homophobic people and local authorities if he returns to Lebanon. He says he cannot live safely anywhere in the country and the authorities will not protect him. Article 534 of the Lebanese Penal Code criminalises sex against nature.

44. The applicant’s claims were supported by a submission from his then representative to the previous Tribunal dated June 2016.

45. After the previous Tribunal held a hearing with the applicant, he submitted two short statements dated June 2016, one from his brother and one from [Mr A], who claimed to have been the applicant’s housemate and former lover, and wishing to remain anonymous as his sexuality was against his religion as a Muslim. Both statements are brief but supported the applicant’s claims.

46. The previous Tribunal affirmed the decision. This was remitted by consent from the court on the basis that the information in the dob-in was not put to the applicant.

47. At the hearings before me the applicant provided medical reports about his [Body part 1], medications, mental and general health and information about Hezbollah being designated a terrorist organisation by Australia.

48. After the first hearing he provided a submission, photographs and a brief statement from [Mr A].

    Nationality and identity

49. I accept that the applicant is a [Age]-year-old Lebanese citizen. He was born in Tripoli and entered Australia on a valid Lebanese passport. He has provided a copy of this passport and his current Lebanese passport issued this year to me.

    Consideration and findings

    Health conditions and capacity of the applicant

50. At the first hearing the applicant gave me several medical reports which indicate that he has significant chronic [Body part 1] pain and takes a range of medications for this. I asked him about this at the first hearing and he said that he had had chronic [Body part 1] pain since 2011 and then around 2015 or 2016 he was involved in a car accident which exacerbated the pain.

51. At the second hearing the applicant claimed he had depression and anxiety symptoms as well as [Body parts 1 and 2] pain and trouble sleeping. He provided a referral from a GP to a psychologist that indicated the applicant was suffering symptoms of anxiety, requesting management from the psychologist. The letter set out that the applicant was medicated for [Body part 1], sleeping problems and [Body part 2] pain. He provided a script from a different Dr indicating he had been prescribed medication for depression. The GP had referred the applicant to a psychologist but the applicant indicated he had not yet seen a psychologist as there was a wait. His brother had taken him to another GP who had prescribed the medication to resolve his symptoms of depression.

52. I have looked at the medical reports and I accept the applicant has chronic [Body part 1] pain including nerve damage and damage to his [Related body part], exacerbated by a car accident in 2015 or 2016 and takes a range of medications for this pain. I accept he suffers symptoms of anxiety and depression. I accept he has received medication for these symptoms.

53. The applicant has claimed he has depression, anxiety and stress. Despite no formal diagnosis from a medical health professional, I am willing to accept that the applicant has experienced stress and symptoms of anxiety and may experience symptoms of depression.

54. At the hearings I spoke to the applicant about his medical history. Having spent a considerable time with the applicant I found him able to respond to questions, seek clarification and on a number of occasions he checked with the interpreters that they had been specific enough about his answers. I assess that the applicant had capacity and was able to fully participate in both hearings.

55. The applicant claimed towards the end of the first hearing that the side effects of his medications for his [Body part 1] problems explained the inconsistencies in his evidence. I asked him which medications and he claimed it was the sleeping tablets. I noted to him that he had been able to answer the questions posed in a coherent way and had seemed to have quite good recall for some aspects of his claims, but not all, and that I was not sure the medication or his claimed stress or depression explained the concerns and inconsistencies with his evidence that I had identified. The applicant reiterated that it was his medication and depression.

56. I do not accept that his mental state has impaired his capacity to give evidence nor his ability to function. I do not accept that the concerns set out below can be explained by the applicant’s symptoms of anxiety, depression, stress, feeling low nor his medication, on the information before me. I found the applicant at the hearings to be coherent in his evidence, to be able to confirm questions and seek follow up information when he was unsure. He responded to my questions with detail in many instances. I find that the applicant had capacity to give evidence and present arguments at the hearings. I do not accept that the concerns and inconsistencies I identified with his evidence can be wholly or partly explained by his medication or his mental state or health.

    Religion

57. The applicant claims to have converted from his birth religion of Islam to Roman Orthodox Christianity in Australia in June 2011. At the first hearing he was able to describe his interactions and feelings towards his mother, visits to Churches for weddings and baptisms and visits with his grandfather to church when he stayed at his grandfather’s house. He also explained that his Christian aunt in Australia had supported him when he was attending University and had sponsored his three visits to Australia, clearly setting out how his feelings towards Christianity had developed over a very long time, from his childhood to adulthood. His evidence on this aspect was coherent and plausible and detailed. He has provided evidence of his Baptism [in] June 2011 which took place in Australia. I found the applicant’s claims about his connection with, and engagement with, Christianity to be coherent, detailed and plausible. I accept that the applicant converted to Roman Orthodox Christianity in Australia in June 2011 after a lifetime of association with the faith through his mother’s side.

1. When asked about his more recent religious practice in Australia the applicant said he had been going regularly after Baptism, but then his uncle on his mother’s side had been talking about the applicant’s conversion to the community and the applicant was worried that this would get back to his father’s family in Lebanon and so he did not attend as much. He said he went occasionally to weddings and christenings.

2. I have concerns with this claim given he had earlier claimed that a cousin in Australia had told someone from the applicant’s village in Lebanon and people had been asking about his conversion. The applicant has not stopped attending church, rather he has reduced the times he attends. I do not accept that the applicant has ceased attending church because of fears that his father and father’s family will find out.

3. The applicant claims that his father’s family is very religious. However, his evidence on how religious they were was unconvincing and undetailed. For example when asked how observant his father’s faith was he said simply that they practiced. He had to be prompted to tell me that they observed the pillars of Islam (prayer, alms-giving, fasting and pilgrimage) and even there he provided few details. He gave evidence that when he was living in Lebanon he had attended mosque only sometimes, perhaps once every three months, only for Friday as people would ask if he did not attend mosque, and he did not indicate that this had presented any difficulties to his father or his family. The applicant claimed later in the first hearing that his father had taken his mother by force during the war and it was not a love relationship, and his uncles were Tawhid and very devout. He asserted that this meant his family was devout. Even if the applicant is being truthful when he says his father took his mother by force during the war, they have remained together since then. I found his evidence on his father’s and uncle’s claimed religiosity unconvincing. He himself was able to go to Church for weddings and baptisms and to his maternal grandfathers and attend Church with him. I do not accept that the situation described by the applicant establishes that either his father, his uncles or any one on his father’s side of the family is a devout Muslim. Later he claimed that his father would hit him and the applicant had to do what his father wished such as getting his hair cut a certain way and that the applicant used to get some gifts from his mother’s side and his father would take those from him.

4. Taking the applicant’s evidence as a whole I do not accept that he has established that his father and father’s family are particularly devout Muslims. Rather, he has described a family of mixed religions and one that is tolerant and willing to have him attend Church for religious celebrations as well as with his grandfather, and conversely has not required him to attend mosque particularly regularly. I find that the applicant comes from a religiously pluralistic and tolerant family which is not fundamentalist or excessively religious. I do not accept that his father or his uncles or any of his father’s family are extremist or devout Muslims because his own evidence does not support this.

5. When asked what he feared on return to Lebanon the applicant said he had changed his faith in Australia. When prompted he said that this made him scared because in the Islamic faith if someone converts from Islam they will be apostates and persecuted, and he was scared his family members here in Australia would tell his family in Lebanon. He claimed that his mother’s side of the family knew of his conversion but his father had suspicions but did not know.

6. I explored the country information with the applicant. I explained that what I had read did not support his claim that converts from Islam to Christianity were harmed by families, society, the authorities or anyone else. I noted that the Lebanese Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and respect for all religions, that the country is roughly 50 – 60% combined Muslim communities and 41 - 36% various Christian communities, that unlike most Arab countries people are able to change their religion legally and this will be recognised officially, that mixed marriages such as his parents’ was common in Lebanon and that there is no information available that converts are subjected to official discrimination and may be subjected to localised societal discrimination on the basis of other factors (such as socio-economic) rather than being systemic in nature.[1] Relationships between religious groups are generally peaceful and violent clashes with religious overtones are less common and members of religious groups do not suffer official discrimination but may suffer low-level societal discrimination but are unlikely to experience violence if they are in the minority in an area.[2] This information from the DFAT report of 2019 is supported by more recent reports which do not demonstrate an change in the current situation.[3]

   [1] DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon, 19 March 2019, pp. 19 – 20. See also 79 'Christians in Lebanon Maintain a Crucial Presence', International Christian Concern (Persecution.org), 04 July

   [2] DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon, 19 March 2019, p. 20.

   [3] Including the Human Right Watch World Report 2023 – Lebanon, 12 January 2023; USDOS 2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Lebanon, 2 June 2022;

7. The applicant responded that it was not official harm or discrimination but rather tribes and communities, they had a backward mentality. He said that Lebanon was a small community and if they found out he had converted they would harm him. He claimed again that the relationship between his mother and father was not a love relationship, his father had taken his mother by force during war time. He also claimed that there were many ISIS members and strict Islamic cells in the North of Lebanon. He also noted that his maternal uncle had applied to the Department for his mother to come to Australia for a visit but the Department had refused her visa and he claimed that they had said that his mother was a Christian minority in the east that was impacted by war and it was likely that if she came here she would apply for protection. He claimed that this established that he would be harmed.

8. I noted again that the information before me did not support his claim that he would be harmed by Muslims in his local community, nor the wider Muslim community or the authorities. I discussed with the applicant information that there had been attacks by Islamic State but that these had been primarily in the Beka’a valley close to the Syrian border and security operations by the state had reduced the threat.[4] I noted that the assessment of his mother’s visitor visa was not directly related to his case and I was not able to place any weight on this as it did not directly relate to the basis I had to consider and a comparison was not helpful. I further noted that the basis for that decision may have been multiple concerns.

   [4] BTI Lebanon Country Report 2022; DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon, 19 March 2019, p. 15.

9. The applicant said he wanted to return and get married and he would not be able to live his life in hiding. He said if he was not killed he would be persecuted and an outcast and would be bullied.

10. I explained to the applicant that the country information and his evidence about his family might lead me to consider he could return and live safely in his home village, could attend Church, get married as he claimed to want to, and would face only low level societal discrimination that may not rise to the level of serious or significant harm. I noted that his father and his father’s family may be disappointed and angry but on the information he had provided and the country information I may not accept that they would harm the applicant.

11. The applicant asked what guarantee was there that this would happen. I explained again to him my reading of the country information and explained again my assessment of the real chance test and real risk.

12. Later in the first hearing I put to the applicant the gist of the information covered by s. 438(1)(b) pursuant to s. 424AA. I explained the process, provided the information and explained the relevance and consequence.

13. The information was that the Department received a dob-in in 2015 which identified the applicant and his brother in Australia by name. the dob-in alleged that the applicant was trying to stay unlawfully by converting when his mother was Christian and had had no problems.  It identified where and when he had been Baptised. It claimed the applicant had tried to marry a girl in an Islamic ceremony, that his brother was on a working visa and was also trying to stay.

14. I explained to the applicant that this information was relevant because it may cause me to have concerns that he was attempting to remain in Australia by any means and to concerns with whether his claims to be a Christian convert or a bisexual/homosexual are true. I explained the consequence that if this information was relied on it may lead me to find that he had not suffered harm, and would not suffer harm for the reasons claimed and be the reason, or a part of the reason for affirming the decision that is under review. The applicant indicated he understood the information, relevance and consequence. He elected to respond immediately.

15. He said that his brother had citizenship in Australia and had never tried to stay here illegally, his brother had been sponsored. He said that after five years here he got his passport. He then turned to the other information. He said that he had never tried to get married as he had gotten engaged to a girl for 10 days but he left her as she was a Muslim and he could not accept that he could live with a Muslim. He said he did not know who had provided this information but it was wrong. He said the information about him being Baptised was correct and since someone knows that about him they will definitely tell someone in Lebanon.

16. After the first hearing the applicant provided a copy of his brother’s Australian passport, issued in 2019. The applicant also provided a statement which reiterated that he feared his father and Muslim extremists in his home area and that the government could not protect him and he had a subjective fear and believed he could not practice his religion.

17. Having considered the evidence before me I am willing to accept that the applicant has converted from Islam to Christianity. I have had regard to the fact that he has described in some detail his relationship with the Christian faith through his mother, grandfather, and the aunt who lives in Australia. He has described a relationship with the faith based largely on these relationships in his life.

18. I accept that the applicant was Baptised in June 2011. I accept that he has attended Church in Australia, at first regularly and then more sporadically, I accept that this may have been due to people in his family talking about his conversion and his subjective fear that this may lead to his father and father’s family finding out and being unhappy about this.

19. Having carefully considered his evidence I accept that his Baptism and his Church attendance in Australia are for reasons other than solely strengthening his protection claim.

20. I have carefully considered the dob-in. I note that the information contained does not specifically indicate that the applicant was not genuine in his conversion. I give the dob-in little weight in relation to assessing the applicant’s claimed religious conversion claims, although as below I have had regard to the dob-in when assessing his other claims.

    Sexuality

21. Early in the first hearing I asked the applicant if he was in a relationship now and he said he was not, he was single. The applicant then spent a considerable time discoing his claimed fear of harm because of his religion, and only mentioned his sexuality towards the end of the first hearing. I found the applicant’s mentioning of this aspect of his claims only late in the piece to be curious. It led me to seek clarification from the applicant about these claims.

22. When I asked him more about these claims the applicant gave brief, terse, undetailed answers, in contrast to his more fulsome and detailed answers about his claimed religious conversion.

23. He said that he had come here and something happened with him and it happened, he had relations with someone. When prompted he said this person was [Mr B]. I noted that the previous Tribunal had had some concerns with his claims to be bisexual/homosexual or a man who had sex with men (MSM) and that I may also. He said that it was a long time ago. I asked if he had had sexual relationships with any other men and he said it was a long time ago. I asked if he could tell me about any of those relationships in detail and he said he could not give me the name of the guy, only if he asked him. He said that he didn’t feel he had liberty to disclose names without the consent of the other person.

24. I attempted to understand the development of the applicant’s attraction towards other men. He confirmed that he had not ever had sexual relationships in Lebanon. He said he could not quite remember when he became attracted to men but it was after he came here. I asked if he had been attracted to men at all in Lebanon and he said he didn’t think so but on thinking back he thought he had been approached by men who were seeking intimacy a few times over there.

25. I confirmed with the applicant that he had met [Mr B] in Australia in around 2012 or 2013. I asked if he had been attracted to men prior to meeting [Mr B]. He said because he grew up in Lebanon he never thought about this, there was no option to think of a man in that way, he would think a man was pretty or handsome but it was not allowed to go beyond that and he knew that the consequences are being killed straight away and no one would be punished.

26. I noted that I was trying to understand the development of his attraction to men. He said that in Lebanon he was just thinking sometimes a man was beautiful, when he came here this thing happened to him, if someone tried with him he would not refuse he would go with it.

27. I then attempted to understand what the applicant had been told about sex with other men when growing up. He said that they said this was not normal and who ever does this will straight away be killed. I asked him who had told him this and he said teachers, in mosque it was said that in the Quran, God opens the air to swallow those people; homosexuality was not normal behaviour. He denied that it was mentioned in Church but said that after he had converted he read something about it in the Bible but in Christianity there is no violence only tolerance and forgiveness of God.

28. I then asked him what emotions he had had when he had felt attracted to men. He said it was a nice feeling. I asked if he had felt confused at all and he said he had done it with his full will and awareness.

29. I asked if he had thought about what he had been told when he was growing up and he said it occurred to him but he was here in Australia and no one would be able to hurt him. I noted that he had been told this was not normal. The applicant said that that had been in Lebanon and here no one would be able to do anything.

30. I asked the applicant if he had had any male sexual partners other than [Mr B] and he said he had had two, other than [Mr B], he said this had been between 2016 and last year. He said that they were Lebanese as well, one was from his village and was a Muslim and the other was a Christian. I asked where he had met these people and he said in the community, when pressed to be more specific he said they were friends, they went shopping and to coffee shops. I asked, apart from these two Lebanese men had he had sex with any other men and he said there was someone and they just did it for fun but not a relationship and this was a [Country 2 man]. He confirmed that he had only had sex with these four men.

31. I raised with the applicant issues of concern. I noted that I was concerned that he had not seemed to have any doubts or struggles between what he had been told about men who had sex with men when he was growing up and then being attracted to men. I explained that the concern was that he had explained that he had been raised the whole time being told it was wrong and then when he had realised he was attracted to men and had sexual relationships, when he came to realise he was sexually attracted to men, and had sex with men, he might understandably have struggled with this. However, I understood his evidence to be that he had not felt confused or any tension between these apparently contradictory positions and had returned to explaining only that that had been in Lebanon and he was in Australia.

32. The applicant responded explaining what he had done, not how he had felt. He then said he had not given his opinion, only the opinion of society.

33. I noted the apparent inconsistency with his statutory declaration of May 2014 with his application which had bene previously raised with him, where he described in significant and explicit detail one sexual experience with [Mr B] but did not describe an ongoing sexual relationship with [Mr B] nor any other sexual relationships with other men, which he had subsequently claimed. He responded that the previous member had not asked him a lot of questions and now he felt he had to tell his whole story.

34. Pursuant to s. 424AA, I put to the applicant a further set of information relating to apparent inconsistencies with his claims to be bisexual/homosexual/MSM. The first was that he had told the delegate in October 2014 that he had had sex on many occasions with [Mr B] over the course of a month and had also had sex with two Thai ‘ladyboys’ and a Lebanese man. He had not mentioned the Thai ‘ladyboys’ to me, despite being given several opportunities. Secondly, despite his previous protection application being rejected by the Department, Tribunal, Federal Magistrates Court and Full Federal Court, when he sought Ministerial Intervention request in August 2013, some time after he claims to have had his sexual experience with [Mr B], he did not indicate in that request that he feared harm on return to Lebanon for reasons of his sexuality. I noted that the previous tribunal had put this to the applicant, and he had said he was too embarrassed to mention it but he had also said he had told his lawyer but the lawyer did not include it.

35. I explained the relevance of this information was that it may indicate he had not had the sexual experiences with [Mr B] or any other man as he had claimed, as it might be expected he would mention it, especially as he was represented and had been unsuccessful at all tiers of review, it might indicate that he had fabricated this claim and he was not bisexual/homosexual/MSM. I explained that if I relied on these inconsistencies, I may find that he was not bisexual/homosexual/MSM and that his claims in this regard were not credible, which may be the reason, or a part of the reason for affirming the decision that is under review.

36. The applicant indicated he understood the information, relevance and consequence. He elected to respond immediately.

37. He said that he had forgotten to tell me about the two ‘ladyboys’. He claimed that he did not remember things and it had been a long time and that he was telling the truth. In relation to the Ministerial Intervention he said that he had told his lawyer everything but his lawyer was in charge of everything and had decided what to write. He confirmed that he was saying that he had told his lawyer that he was bisexual. I noted that I might not accept this explanation because I might think that his representative would have included this in the ministerial intervention request as a reason he could not return to Lebanon. The applicant claimed the lawyer just cared about money and did not do a good job.

1. I have carefully considered the explanations the applicant has provided to me and earlier when these issues have been raised with him. In relation to him not mentioning his claim to have slept with two Thai ‘ladyboys’ to me, but having claimed this to the delegate, I do not accept his claim that he inadvertently forgot this, because I provided him with numerous opportunities to tell me of all his past sexual experiences. Given he was able to recall other claimed partners, I do not accept that he would not have been able to tell me about these two claimed sexual partners. I do not accept that his medication and his symptoms of anxiety, stress and depression can explain this inconsistency given he was able to recall other information with some specificity during the hearings. This leads me to have further concerns with the claims of the applicant to be bisexual/homosexual/MSM.

2. The applicant has provided differing explanations for why his sexuality was not included in the Ministerial Intervention request he filed in August 2013. He claimed that he did not include this because he was embarrassed or unwilling to divulge this information. I do not accept this claim as the applicant has contradicted this with his later claim that he did divulge this to his representative who then did not include this in the MI request, but also because it does not appear consistent with his providing explicit detail of his sexual experience with [Mr B] some months later in May 2014.

3. The applicant has claimed he told his representative and the representative did not include this information in the MI request. I do not accept this claim because I consider that the representative would have included this information in the MI request if this information was available to them. The applicant claims the representative was only interested in money and did not do a good job. Even if the representative was only interested in money this does not explain why they would not have used this information if available – as a migration representative I find that they would certainly have been aware that MI requests may include anything relevant to the Minister exercising their discretion, and the claim that the applicant was a bisexual would have been clearly relevant to the representative to a consideration of whether the applicant could return to Lebanon safely or should be granted a visa to remain in Australia. I find that the information about the applicant’s claimed sexuality was not included in the MI request because the applicant did not tell his representative. I find that the fact his information was not mentioned in the MI request leads me to have further concerns with the claim of the applicant to be bisexual/homosexual/MSM.

4. The applicant towards the end of the first hearing asked if he could provide photographs and details of his current partner. I indicated he could but noted that what really concerned me was that the applicant was not able to provide very much information about his claimed homosexuality/bisexuality, his answers had been brief and undetailed, particularly when discussing how he came to the realisation that he was sexually attracted to men and in discussing his internal state when he realised this and when he had had sex with men when his upbringing had included him being told that this was wrong. I agreed to provide further time for the applicant to provide further information.

5. The applicant said that the dob-in (as referred to above in the earlier section) had made him even more scared to return as the person knew everything about him and they would tell people in Lebanon that he was bisexual. I explained that the dob-in had not mentioned his sexuality at all so I did not accept that this person knew about his claimed bisexuality or that he claimed to have had sex with men.

100.   I noted then that I may give little weight to the brief letters from his brother and his former housemate/lover [Mr A] who stated very briefly that the applicant was homosexual. The applicant said he would like his lover [Mr A] to give evidence, he said he was always with him and he needed to ask him if he could give evidence and he had photos with him at the hotel.

101.   After the first hearing the applicant provided a statement, photographs and a short letter signed by [Mr A], which stated that he wished to confirm his relationship with the applicant started approximately 8 years ago, they were very close and spent time together as a committed couple. They are known by friends to be together, and he accompanied the applicant to the first hearing but did not give evidence. The provided photographs (which [Mr A] agreed the applicant could provide) show the two men in a variety of social situations together. The photographs show the applicant and another man I in a variety of social situations together. 

102.   The statement from the applicant provided after the first hearing reiterated that he feared harm as a Christian convert and a homosexual. In relation to the feared harm as a homosexual he said that he has accepted homosexuality which is completely forbidden in Lebanon, where he comes from is a very strict area and he cannot live as a Christian or a homosexual. He will not be able to practice his religion or sexuality.

103.   Given the statement from [Mr A], and the inconclusive nature of the photographs, as above I decided to have another hearing to give the applicant and [Mr A] the opportunity to tell me more about their claimed relationship.

104.   As above, [Mr A] did not appear at that hearing. As I explained to the applicant, I had wanted to speak to [Mr A] and the applicant about their claimed long running relationship.

105.   Even if the reasons the applicant and [Mr A] gave for him not wanting to appear, that is, that [Mr A] does not wish to speak of their relationship as it is against his Muslim religion, it is a private matter, the fact that I was not able to speak with [Mr A] leaves me with little information about the applicant’s claimed homosexuality and his claimed relationship with [Mr A].

106.   I am aware that homosexuals/bisexuals/MSM may feel some reluctance to talk about what may be a very private and hidden part of their lives. As [Mr A] chose not to appear at the second hearing I cannot determine if these are the real reasons he chose not to attend.

107.   I have therefore to assess the applicant’s claims based on the information I do have available to me.

108.   I have had regard to the applicants claims and statements made through the application process. I have had regard to the brief letter of support from his brother of 2016 and the brief statements of [Mr A] from 2016 and 2023. I have had regard to the photos provided.

109.   The applicant provided little detail about his claimed sexuality. What information he did provide was inconsistent, as set out above. In particular I was deeply concerned about the applicant’s responses when I attempted to ascertain the development of his realisation that he was same-sex attracted, and his internal feelings about what he had been told about such persons, and his realisation that he was and identified as such a person. The applicant was able to give no coherent detailed account of his internal feelings about these events, referring back constantly to the fact that he had engaged in sex outside Lebanon and therefore he could not be harmed, but this was not what the questions were attempting to illuminate, rather, I asked in a number of ways about his internal feelings and thoughts about this.

110.   Of further concern were the inconsistencies as above, and in particular his failure to raise this in his ministerial intervention request, his explicit detail about one sexual experience but failure to mention others in his statutory declaration.

111.   The applicant’s evidence about his sexuality was in all other respects short and lacking detail. It did not strike me as being lived experiences, with no richness of detail or content. Even at the second hearing, when the applicant claimed he and [Mr A] had travelled to Melbourne together and I invited him to tell me more about it he had responded only that it was for relaxing.

112.   I have carefully thought about whether the applicant’s poor evidence can be ascribed to reticence as a homosexual/bisexual/MSM who sees this part of his life as private and may fear disclosure. He has stated this and intimated this at various points. But this does not ring true for the applicant. He is reasonably well educated, he has provided explicit detail of a claimed sexual experience in his statutory declaration, and most importantly he has been repeatedly told that the information in this process will not be disclosed and been repeatedly told that he needs to provide sufficient detail of his claims to satisfy the decision maker that those claims are true. He has not done so. I do not accept that the difficulties with the applicant’s evidence above can be explained by reticence/fear of disclosure on the part of the applicant.

113.   The applicant’s statements have been brief, apart from the sexual experience with [Mr B] he described. The statements in support from his brother and from [Mr A] are also brief and undetailed. I can give these statements only little weight as supporting the applicant’s claims given their lack of detail.

114.   The photographs of the applicant and a person I am prepared to accept is [Mr A] are photos which, in my assessment, may represent two persons in an intimate relationship socialising and spending time together, or may represent two persons who have a close, non-sexual friendship socialising and spending time together. Given my concerns above, I find that they are the latter. I find that I can give these photos no weight as supporting the claims of the applicant to be in a same-sex intimate relationship with [Mr A], nor his claims to be homosexual/bisexual/MSM.

115.   Having carefully considered the claims of the applicant, I find that I do not accept that the applicant is a homosexual/bisexual/MSM, nor that he has had an intimate sexual relationship with [Mr A], [Mr B], or any other man. I find his claims lack credibility given the concerns raised above. Despite these concerns having been raised with him multiple times, he has provided only very brief statements in support and photos which, as above, I give no weight

116.   As I have not accepted the applicant is a homosexual/bisexual/MSM, it follows that I do not accept that the person who made the dob-in knows or thinks that the applicant is a homosexual/bisexual/MSM. I do not accept that he is known to be or believed or suspected to be homosexual/bisexual/MSM in Australia or Lebanon.

Generalised claims

117.   The applicant has claimed that he is concerned about the security and economic situation in Lebanon and how it would affect him on return.

118.   The applicant claimed that Hezbollah was in control and there was no government. He claimed that Australia owed him protection as Lebanon was a terrorist government. He referred to the information he had provided which indicated that the Australian Government had designated Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation.

119.   I noted that whilst there was a political crisis in Lebanon, Hezbollah were not in control of the country. I further noted that the designation of Hezbollah by the Australian government which he had provided clearly indicated that the reason for the designation was the concern that Hezbollah may harm Australia including domestic Australian terrorism, or Australia’s interests, and that I did not assess this to be connected to his claims to be a Christian convert on return to Lebanon.

120.   The applicant later said that there was no security in Lebanon. He said the situation in North Lebanon is worse than other areas. I noted that his home area was not in the North Governorate nor on the border with Syria. He reiterated that it was a bad area.

121.   I also raised with the applicant that I might think he could access medication for his symptoms of anxiety and depression, [Body parts 1 and 2] pain and sleeping issues in Lebanon and that he could be supported by his family and his aunt and brother in Australia as he currently was. He said that he could access the medicines but he could not afford them.

122.   After the first hearing he provided a statement which said that Lebanon was practically bankrupt, people were killing each other, and the Department had information which had been reported to relatives in Lebanon which would definitely put his life at serious risk.

123.   Let me make clear here that I do not accept that the anonymous dob-in received by the Department will lead to the applicant being harmed. I explained this to the applicant at the hearing. I do not accept that the Dob-in would be provided by the Department to his relatives or anyone else. I do not accept that the person who made the dob-in would have any reason to report what they had said to the Department more widely. Further, the dob-in related to the applicant’s claims in relation to his religion. For the reasons that follow, I do not accept that the applicant will be harmed for any reason connected to his religion on return.

124.   I have had regard to country information about the security and economic situation in Lebanon. Approximately 80 percent of the country now lives in poverty, up from 55 percent in 2020.[5] The financial crisis has impacted the security situation in Lebanon. The ICG warns that, as state control ‘recedes and ungoverned spaces expand, turf wars may break out between political groups in some areas and between criminal networks in others, but the ICG also assesses that Lebanon is unlikely to descend into civil war.’[6] Generalised crime levels are rising.[7]

[5] Managing Lebanon’s Compounding Crises ', International Crisis Group (ICG), 28 October 2021, p.1; 'Explainer: How bad is the crisis in Lebanon?', Reuters, 11 September 2021; '2020 UN Lebanon Annual Results Report', United Nations Lebanon, 12 May 2021.

[6] 'Preventing State Collapse in Lebanon', International Crisis Group (ICG), 01 October 2020.

[7] 'Lebanon: Fending Off Threats from Within and Without', International Crisis Group (ICG), 27 January 2022.

125.   In relation to his claims of concern about ISIS or Islamic State attacks, as noted above I explained to the applicant that there had been attacks by Islamic State but that these had been primarily close to the Syrian border and security operations by the state had reduced the threat.[8]

[8] BTI Lebanon Country Report 2022; DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon, 19 March 2019, p. 15.

126.   Hezbollah does not control the country, but does control parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the eastern Bekaa Valley region.[9] In November 2021 Australia also listed the entirety of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.[10] But this can best be understood as part of a coordinated effort with the United States to exert maximum pressure on Iran and its proxies.[11]

[9] 'Beirut’s Shiites Like the Idea of Change, but Like Hezbollah More', New York Times, The, 14 August 2020.

[10] 'Australia designates Hezbollah a ‘terrorist organisation’', Aljazeera, 24 November 2021.

[11] 'US sanctions 2 Lebanon-based firms, Hezbollah-linked person', Associated Press (AP), 18 September 2020.

127.   The health system in Lebanon is largely private.[12] There is limited access to health insurance through the Ministry of Public Health.[13]

[12] ''You have no one but us': Lebanon’s political elite resurrected amid coronavirus crisis', Middle East Eye, 31 March 2020.

[13] 'Marginalization Cost: Regional Disparities Fueling Lebanon’s Fragility', Carnegie Middle East Center, 16 September 2020.

128.   As raised with the applicant, I do not accept that the country information before me indicates the applicant will suffer a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm because of the generalised security and economic situation in Lebanon, from Hezbollah, ISIS or because of the medications he requires.

129.   The applicant will be returning to his home area, a village [Time] minutes from Tripoli. This is in the North Governorate, and not near to the Syrian border or the Akkar governorate, which have seen higher levels of conflict, nor to an area controlled by Hezbollah. Being close to the second city of Lebanon the applicant will have access to services including health services which he would not if he were in a rural area. The applicant may struggle to find work, as do many people in Lebanon, but the applicant has been unable to work in Australia and has been supported by his brother and aunt. I find that they would continue to support the applicant on return to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Does the applicant face a real chance of persecution on return to Lebanon?

130.   I have accepted the applicant’s claims that he has converted from Islam to Orthodox Christianity. I have not accepted and found not to be credible his claims that he is a homosexual/bisexual/MSM or has had an intimate relationship with [Mr A] or anyone else. I accept that the applicant has a range of health and mental health symptoms and is taking a range of medicines for this.

131.   I find that the applicant will return to his village, [Time] minutes from Tripoli, the second largest city in Lebanon, as a Christian convert. I find that the applicant will be able to draw on support from his family on return, I have not accepted above his characterisation of his father nor of his father’s family as extremist or particularly devout, rather I have found he comes for a religiously pluralist and tolerant family. I find that he will be able to access support from his Lebanese family and financial support from his Australian aunt and brother, as he has done whilst in Australia.

132.   As discussed above, Lebanon is a pluralistic, religiously tolerant society, particularly in more urban areas. Christians make up a sizeable minority, relations between religious groups are generally peaceful and people are able, and do, change their religious affiliation. Mixed marriages such as his parents’ are common. While there is some information that converts may be subjected to societal discrimination, I consider that the chance of this for the applicant is much lower because he lives in an area close to the second largest city in Lebanon, not in a rural area and I have found that his family is religiously pluralist and tolerant.

133.   On the information before me I find that the applicant can return to his home area and his family, as a convert to Orthodox Christianity. I find that he will be supported by his family in Lebanon and Australia. I find on what I have concluded of his circumstances, his family and his home area that there is no real chance the applicant will be harmed for reasons of his Christian Orthodox religion, his having converted from Islam, as an apostate or for any related reason by officials, his family, society at large or any one else on return to his home area of a village [Time] minutes away from Tripoli, Lebanon.

134.   As above I have found that the applicant is not homosexual/bisexual\MSM nor has he had intimate relationships with any man. I have found he is not considered to be nor imputed with being a person who is homosexual/bisexual\/MSM by anyone in Australia or Lebanon. It follows that I find that there is no real chance that the applicant will be harmed by anyone on return to his home area of Lebanon for any reason connected with his claims to be homosexual/bisexual\MSM (which I have found not to be credible and do not accept).

135.   I have carefully considered the applicant’s claims that he fears the general security and economic situation in Lebanon, and connected to this, Hezbollah and ISIS. These fears are entirely understandable given the difficult situation in Lebanon. However, I have found that the applicant will return to his home area, close to Tripoli. He will have the support of his family both in Lebanon and in Australia I find. This is not an area under Hezbollah control, nor is it an area close to the Syrian border or Akkar which has seen attacks by Sunni militants including ISIS (although as above even these attacks have been reduced by operations by the LAF). I also find that the assessment favours Lebanon not descending into civil war in the reasonably foreseeable future. I find that there is no real chance the applicant will be harmed by Hezbollah, ISIS or any Sunni militants on return to his home area. I have had regard to the information of generalised criminality which has increased since the Beirut bomb blast and the resulting political and economic turmoil. However, as already noted the applicant will be returning to his home village, and will access support from his Lebanese and Australian family and I do not accept that there is a real chance that he will be harmed by general criminality given these protective factors. I have had regard to the economic situation in Lebanon. However, as noted already, the applicant will have the support of his Lebanese family and will have the economic support of his Australian family. This will, I find, allow the applicant to be able to subsist on return to his home area and I find that there is no real chance the applicant will be seriously harmed because of the economic situation in Lebanon, given what I have found in relation to his personal and family circumstances.

136.   I have also had regard to the applicant’s physical and mental health. At the moment in Australia the treatment the applicant receives for this is medication. For his health complaints he takes a range of medications which he conceded were available in Lebanon. As above, I have found the applicant has the support and financial support of his Australian family. I find he would be able to access and afford the range of medicines he currently accesses for his mental and physical health. I find that, with this financial support he would be able to access the health system in Lebanon for further care for his physical and mental health. I find that there is no real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm for reasons of his physical and mental health as I have considered above.

137.   Having carefully considered the situation of the applicant, I have considered whether, cumulatively, the characteristics of the applicant as accepted will lead to a real chance of him facing serious harm on return. I find that as a Christian convert, who has a range of mental and physical health conditions as accepted above, and returning to the security and economic situation of Lebanon, will not face a real chance of serious harm for any reason connected to these characteristics individually or cumulatively. This is on the basis of the country information and because I have found the applicant will return to his home area and have the support of his Lebanese and Australian family. I find that there is no real chance the applicant will face persecution for reasons of his religion, his health, or for any other reason, individually or cumulatively, on return to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Is there a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is removed from Australia to Lebanon?

138.   As above I have accepted the applicant is a Christian convert. As above I have found there is no real chance he will face serious harm connected with his religion. I find on the same reasoning that there is no real risk he will suffer significant harm on any basis connected with his religion.

139.   As above I have not accepted that the applicant is homosexual/bisexual\MSM nor has he had intimate relationships with any man. I have found he is not considered to be nor imputed with being a person who is homosexual/bisexual\/MSM by anyone in Australia or Lebanon. It follows that I find that there is no real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm on any basis connected with these claims (which I have found not to be credible and do not accept).

140.   I have accepted that the applicant has a range of mental and physical health conditions as above. As above, I have found that the applicant will return to his home area and have the support of his Lebanese family and the financial support of his Australian family. I find that this support will allow him to access medication as well as medical care for his conditions and I find that this will therefore lead to there being no real risk he will suffer significant harm on any basis connected to his mental and physical health conditions.

141.   AS above I have considered the economic and security situation in Lebanon. I have had regard to the level of general criminality in Lebanon. As above I have found the applicant will return to his home area, near Tripoli. I have found as above that he will have the support of his family in Lebanon and Australia. Considering his characteristics and the country information I find that there is no real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm on any basis connected with the security, economic or general criminal situation in Lebanon.

142.   I have considered what I have accepted of the applicant’s claims. I accept that the applicant is a Christian convert, that he has a range of mental and physical health conditions. I accept he is returning to Lebanon at a time when there are a range of economic and political concerns, criminality concerns and security concerns (although as above these are generally in areas not near the applicant’s home area). Considering the information before me I find that there is no real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm on any basis accepted now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Conclusion

143.   For the reasons given above, 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).

1. 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). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

2. 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 criterion in s 36(2).

   DECISION

146.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Sean Baker
Member

2019; 'Elections in Lebanon, does political change stand a chance?', Aljazeera, 19 May 2022; 'Post-election calm prevails in Beirut’s divided neighbourhoods', Aljazeera, 20 May 2022.