1818624 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Lebanese national. The applicant had previously made claims for protection based on religious conversion, which had been refused and affirmed on review. In a subsequent application, the applicant reiterated his religious conversion claim and also raised a new claim based on his alleged bisexuality and fear of harm from family, community, and extremist groups. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Lebanon.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the criteria for a protection visa, which include obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and complementary protection grounds. The applicant's previous claims regarding religious conversion had been accepted as genuine by the Tribunal, but the fear of harm was not accepted. In the current application, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his alleged bisexuality and fear of harm to be brief, undetailed, and inconsistent. While a written statement from a claimed lover was provided, no oral evidence was given by this individual. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's social and sexual activities in Australia, his physical and mental health, and general country information regarding Lebanon.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly the new claim relating to his sexual orientation. Despite acknowledging the applicant's religious conversion, the Tribunal found his evidence regarding his fear of harm from family, community, and extremist groups to be lacking in credibility. Anonymous allegations were given no weight. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.