1922442 (Refugee)

[2025] ARTA 1385

1922442 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1385 (24 February 2025)

DECISION AND  

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:  1922442

Tribunal:General Member C Graydon

Date:24 February 2025

Place:Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:

·s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 24 February 2025 at 9:26am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – religion – Sunni – particular social group – mixed-sect relationship – premarital sexual relationship – fear of honour killing – impact of limited interpretation at interview – economic and security crisis in Lebanon – internal relocation – state protection – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 9 August 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.

3. The applicant who claims to be a national of Lebanon, applied for the visa on 28 September 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate did not accept the credibility of the applicant’s claims and therefore found he did not face the harms claimed.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

BACKGROUND

Protection visa application

1. The applicant claims to be [an age]-year-old Lebanese citizen of the Sunni sect of the Muslim religion born in [Town 1], Miniyeh–Danniyeh District, North Governorate, Lebanon. A summary of his protection claims lodged on 28 September 2017 put before the Department is below:

• He is fearful of return to Lebanon due to him fearing attack from the family of a Shia woman he had an intimate relationship with outside of marriage between 2016 and 2017.

• The woman’s family found out about the relationship when she rejected other suitors and then admitted to her parents she wanted to be with the applicant.

• Through intermediaries, the applicant attempted to reconcile with her family and offered to marry the woman but her family instead attacked the applicant when he was driving in his car, which caused him to feel fear they would further harm him if they found him.

• Straight after, he left his home and hid for some time at a friend’s house near his town until his friend said that he could not stay longer as it was causing problems for his friend, and so he left Lebanon and came to Australia.

• The incident was reported to the police. The police responded that this is a family matter and advised to resolve the issue amicably. The police did not help him because it was becoming more of a Sunni and Shia altercation. The police also said that if a complaint were lodged against him by the woman’s family, they would be forced to act.

• However, her family did not report to the police, which made the applicant think they had a more sinister plan to attack him directly.

• The applicant fears that he remains at risk from the woman’s family as his cross-sect and outside-of-marriage sexual relationship with the woman has caused damage to her family’s honour which can only be avenged by taking action against him.

• Lebanon is a small country and people can be found wherever they are, especially as the woman’s family could seek assistance from Shia militant organisations to find him, so he would not be safe anywhere in Lebanon.

• The authorities would not protect him as they do not get involved in issues they consider to be family disputes and because policing in Lebanon is conducted on a sectarian basis. 

Supporting documents

1. In addition to his protection visa application, the applicant provided the Department with a copy of his Lebanese passport he used to travel to Australia.

Protection visa application interview

1. The applicant was interviewed by a delegate of the Department on 17 July 2019 with the assistance of an Arabic interpreter. The applicant’s legal representative did not attend the interview.

2. The Tribunal has listened to the recording of the interview and confirms the accuracy of the summary of information provided by the applicant at that interview in the delegate’s decision:

• His brother passed away [in] August 2018. He did not go to his funeral because he feared returning to Lebanon.

  • He was in a relationship with a twenty-year old Shia girl called [Partner A]. She lived in the village of [Village 1], about a ten-minute drive from his house.
  • He did not know much about her family.
  • She had [number] older brothers, but he did not know their names. Her father’s name was [name].
  • He met her in March 2016 at a public garden with a lot of restaurants where people usually gather. She was alone when he met her.
  • Because he was working, he was only free on Sundays, so they did not meet too often. His girlfriend would leave her house under some pretext to meet him.
  • No one else knew about their relationship. Only one of his friends knew what was going on.
  • They used to talk to each other using social media, and he was using a profile with a girl’s name.
  • He does not have any evidence of the relationship anymore. All the communication was on his old phone with a Lebanese contact number. He deleted all messages and cut all the contacts after he left for Australia.
  • He had the intention to marry her once he completed his house not far away from his parent’s place. He knew that she was from a different confession, but he thought they would have a civil marriage.
  • On [a day in] July 2017, him and his girlfriend consummated their relationship.
  • At the time of this event, he already had a visa to enter Australia, but he did not tell his girlfriend that he was leaving.
  • He last spoke to his girlfriend about two weeks later when she called him and told him that someone had come to ask for her hand. She told her parents about him, and they said they would kill him.
  • Her parents sent some people to his parents’ house to tell them what happened and tell them they would seek revenge.
  • About a week later he travelled from [Town 1] to [Village 1] by car. When he was passing her parents’ house, they broke the glass on his car.
  • He went to a police station about three days later and reported that his girlfriend’s family was threatening to kill him.
  • He did not follow up on what happened to his girlfriend. He tried to stay away from her and hoped that the whole affair would be forgotten.
  • No one would help him. Although the Sunnis have a majority in the Northern Governorate, Shia have more power and influence.
  • I noted that the country information suggests that the police would be interested in preventing any sectarian strife if this was becoming a more significant issue. He responded that the police have no power and authority in Lebanon.
  • The Shia control the army, airport and have their own militia. The government cannot do anything about them.
  • He has never been personally politically involved or involved with militant organisations in Lebanon.
  • He stayed with his friend in his house to stay safe. He only came home for a quick visit to change his clothes.

1. Following the interview, the applicant submitted further documentation in support of his application comprised of:

   • Death certificate and translation concerning his brother, [Brother A], dated [in] August 2018; cause of death recorded as ‘haemorrhage in the head’.
   • Applicant’s marriage certificates to [Wife A] [in] May 2019, both Islamic marriage and Australian marriage certificates, along with a copy of the wedding party invitation.
   • Copy and translation of applicant’s Lebanese ‘family book’ showing that the applicant is from a Sunni Muslim family from [Town 1] and is the [specified position] in his family ([specified siblings], one now deceased.)

Delegate’s decision

1. On 9 August 2019 the delegate refused the applicant’s visa on the basis that he did not accept that the applicant had a relationship with a Shia woman as claimed and also therefore did not accept his account of being attacked or harmed by her family in the past or that he faced a risk of future harm from them. The delegate also rejected the applicant’s claim that the authorities did not provide him with adequate protection from the woman’s family. The delegate found that the applicant would be returning to Lebanon as a Sunni Muslim and that this would not place at him at risk of serious harm in Lebanon.

Before the Tribunal

1. On 13 August 2019 the applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal, providing the Tribunal with a copy of the notification letter and the primary decision made by the delegate. 

2. On 10 July 2024 the applicant was invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 8 August 2024. On 5 August 2024 the applicant appointed a legal representative who requested the hearing be rescheduled to allow time for preparation of the case. The Tribunal agreed to the request and invited the applicant to attend a rescheduled hearing on 19 September 2024. On 12 August 2024 the applicant returned a completed hearing form to the Tribunal indicating that he and his legal representative intended to attend the rescheduled hearing. 

3. On 18 September 2024 the applicant’s legal represented made an urgent request for further postponement of the hearing on the basis of the applicant’s mental health, supported by a brief medical report from a general practitioner indicating that the applicant had suffered from ‘a medical incident today, that likely resulted from several weeks of stress and illness’ and that the incident was rated as ‘moderate to severe in intensity’ with further episodes likely and requesting postponement of his hearing.

4. On 19 September 2024 the Tribunal agreed to further postpone the applicant’s hearing, noting that the medical report provided as the basis for the adjournment was insufficient for the Tribunal to take an informed approach as to how to proceed with relisting and conducting the applicant’s hearing, and providing a period of one month to receive any further medical evidence regarding the applicant’s condition, including any recommendations for supports he may require for his rescheduled hearing.

5. On 26 September 2024 the Tribunal received a second medical report from the applicant’s general practitioner stating that the applicant has suffered from a number of severe panic attacks and high levels of anxiety and had been referred to a psychologist for regular therapy sessions to help him manage his anxiety and regulate his emotions, especially as his case progresses. The report also recommended that extended time and flexibility for his case be extended to the applicant and advised that with adequate support his case could proceed in the next two to three months if certain conditions were met. The report recommended allowing for breaks during the hearing and ensuring his access to psychological support on the day of the hearing to mitigate the risk of him experiencing panic attacks during the hearing.

6. On 8 November the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 11 December 2024 and on 14 November 2024 the applicant provided a completed form indicating that him and his legal representative intended to attend the scheduled hearing.

7. On 9 December 2024 the Tribunal received a legal submission from the applicant’s legal representative in support of the applicant’s case, along with additional supporting documents comprised of:

• Translation of police report claimed to be made by the applicant’s brother, [Brother A] to the [Police Station 1] on [a day in] July 2017 alleging that young men from [Partner A’s] family had threatened to murder his brother, the applicant.

• Translation of letter addressed ‘to whom it may concern’ from [Partner A], dated 25 November 2024, the applicant’s ex-girlfriend, stating that after her relationship with the applicant had been exposed, she had been unable to marry and was considered a disgrace to her family.

• The letter also states that ‘[The applicant] is wanted by my family even for twenty years to come. If they found him, they will target him and kill him because he has damaged the honour and reputation of the women in the tribe. They will take revenge of him, no matter how long it will take them to do so. This issue cannot be forgotten or forgiven since the honour of the family and the tribe is stronger than any authority in Lebanon. However, despite that he left me in such a state, I still wish him safety and peace.’

• The letter also clarified that the writer wrote the letter with the support of the Mukhtar as ‘I am unable to make any contact or communicate with anyone directly. I am terrified that someone would know about this.’ 

• Translation of ‘Individual/Civil Birth Extract’ with photograph issued in
  Miniyeh–Danniyeh [in] August 2024 relating to the birth of [Partner A] on [date] in [Village 1], noting her religion is Shia and her marital status is single.

1. The legal submission addressed the following issues:

• Confirming that the primary reason the applicant fears persecution in Lebanon is due to the disclosure of his previous inter-sect intimate relationship with a Shia woman outside of marriage, which is a forbidden relationship which resulted in damage and shame to the woman’s family’s reputation.

• The woman is from a conservative family who take the issue of family honour very seriously. The woman concerned remains unmarried to the current time due to the damage done to her honour and her family’s reputation.

• Submissions addressing the risks presented of honour-related crimes in Lebanon especially those motivated by inter-sect tensions, which particularly impact on women but also cause risk to men involved in relationships that have caused harm to the reputation of the woman and her family.

• Submissions relating to how the applicant’s claims arising from the inter-sect, forbidden relationship fall within ‘Convention grounds’ and citing case Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar[1] in favour of this argument.

• Submissions addressing credibility issues arising in the delegate’s assessment and referring to the new evidence presented to address and overcome these concerns.

• Submissions addressing the contemporary security situation in Lebanon and how these might impact on the applicant if he returned to Lebanon, including regarding his ability to fulfil his basic needs.

• Submissions arguing that state protection is not adequate or effective throughout all of Lebanon and that relocation is therefore not viable and that complementary protection is alternatively available to refugee protection as the applicant faces a risk of being killed.

Applicant’s evidence at the hearing

[1] [2002] HCA 14; 210 CLR 1.

1. As noted above, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 December 2024 to give evidence and present arguments with the assistance of his legal representative. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

2. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence is discussed in the Tribunal’s findings and reasons below.

3. At the hearing, the Tribunal disclosed to the applicant and his representative that his case was subject to a non-disclosure certificate by the Department relating to information provided by a member of the public relating to the applicant, which is further discussed from paragraph 35.

Post-hearing submissions and evidence

1. The Tribunal agreed to the legal representative’s request to provide a post-hearing submission by 21January 2025, taking into consideration the end-of-year break period and the applicant’s request to provide further documentation from witnesses and experts based in Lebanon, including translations.

2. On 21 January 2025, a further submission was received by the Tribunal along with the following supportive documents:

• Information posted on [social media] and translations regarding a case of a young man from [Town 2] tortured and killed in June 2020 in [District 1] allegedly due to his inter-sect marriage against the woman’s family’s wishes and comments reacting to the case.

• Translation of a news article from the Tripoli News Network undated where a husband and wife were injured and a man killed in a gun shooting in the town of Bqrsouna in the Al-Danniyeh District allegedly related to ‘women’s disputes’.

• Translation of article dated 2 March 2020 from Al-Danniyeh News website titled ‘Incident of dispute and shame washing in Tripoli’, shared on [social media] regarding a man from Bab al-Tabbaneh who was shot dead at the market by the brother of his wife, from the Alawite sect, who he had married against the will of her family.

• An opinion dated 10 January 2025 provided by Haniya Farouk Al-Ash, member of the Bar Association in Tripoli, Lebanon, and holder of a PhD in International Criminal Law from Beirut Arab University in Beirut stating that: honour crimes remain pervasive in Lebanon,  particularly in the Bekaa and North Lebanon regions; if a Lebanese woman has a relationship or marries against her family wishes, her male family members would ‘not hesitate to attack her lover or husband’; the risk of honour crimes affects young men involved as well as the women, as both are considered to have ‘stained the honour and reputation of their clan, sect and religion with shame and stigma’; a case involving Rabi’ Al-Ahmad in the Saoufar area, a male victim of honour killing, ‘is only one of dozens, even hundreds, of cases whose primary cause is marriage or relationship to a person from another sect. The level and degree of horrendousness of such honour crimes vary from kidnapping to murder and abuse.’

• Translated letter dated 7 January 2025 from  [Official A], Mukhtar, [Village 2], Miniyeh–Danniyeh, Northern Governorate: clarifying his role in providing the civil documentation on behalf of [Partner A]; stating that the problem faced by the applicant with [Partner A’s] family is known within the community and confirming that the applicant would be targeted upon his return as stated in [Partner A’s] statement; stating there is growing tension caused by sectarian differences between the families, although the applicant’s family has not been targeted as the issue is specifically with the applicant, as every person is responsible for their own actions, as per religious texts; that there would be no protection for the applicant if returned as no one could interfere in such matters.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Criteria for protection visa

1. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, he or she 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.

2. 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 because the person is a refugee.

3. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).

4. Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)–(6) and ss 5K–LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

5. 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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

Mandatory considerations

1. 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

REASONS AND FINDINGS

1. The issues in this review are 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.

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

Country of nationality

1. The applicant has provided a copy of his Lebanese passport and has consistently claimed to be from Lebanon. There are no apparent concerns with the applicant’s identity. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Lebanon.

1. There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has citizenship of any other country, or any right to enter and/or reside in any third country. Based on the information before it, the Tribunal is satisfied s 36(3) of the Act does not apply. The Tribunal is satisfied that Lebanon is the receiving country for the applicant and has assessed his claims against that country.

Non-disclosure certificate: Notification under s 438

1. The Tribunal disclosed to the applicant and his representative the existence of a
   non-disclosure certificate notification on the applicant’s Department file issued under s 438(1)(b) of the Act made on the basis that disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest because it may disclose or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of a confidential source of information.

2. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that if it is notified that s 438 applies to a document or information, the Tribunal may have regard to any matter in the document or to the information, and, in certain circumstances, it may disclose to the applicant for review any such matter or the information. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that its initial assessment was that the information had been provided to the Department in confidence and that the certificate was a valid certificate. The Tribunal showed the applicant and the applicant’s representative a copy of the certificate notification and invited the applicant to comment on it. He did not have a comment.

3. The Tribunal also informed the applicant that the Tribunal did not consider the information under the certificate to be relevant to any of the issues to be determined in the decision currently before it. It explained that the Tribunal would have no regard to the information under the certificate in making its decision regarding review of his protection visa application refusal. However, out of an abundance of caution and in the interests of transparency and procedural fairness, the Tribunal disclosed to the applicant the gist of the information and provided him with an opportunity to comment on it if he wished, either at the hearing or later in writing.

4. The Tribunal disclosed to the applicant the gist of the information under the certificate, which was that the Department received a dob-in some time ago which identified the applicant by name. It included a number of allegations, namely that: the applicant was bringing family members from Lebanon to Australia on visitor visas and had arranged for them to work illegally in Australia; that the applicant himself was working illegally; that the applicant had bragged of how he had sexually harassed women and ‘got away with it’; and that the applicant planned to carry out a violent attack on a specified public place in a specified year and month, which had passed long before the Tribunal hearing and had clearly not transpired.   

5. The applicant indicated he understood the gist of the information shared and that he understood the Tribunal did not consider it relevant to the decision before it and would not be taking it into account in any way in making its decision. The applicant’s legal representative requested further details of the information including the timing of when the dob-in was made to the Department however the Tribunal declined the request to provide any further details, having already disclosed the gist of the information and balancing the need to not disclose any aspect of the information which could enable the source of the confidential information to be identified.

6. Neither the applicant nor his legal representative had any comment to make regarding the existence of the certificate or regarding the gist of the information that was shared under the certificate.

7. Having considered the information and the notification, and having sought comment from the applicant on this, the Tribunal finds that the information referred to in the s 438(1)(b) notification was disclosed to the Department in confidence and that the certificate is a valid certificate. The Tribunal has therefore handled this information consistently with s 438 by putting the applicant on notice of the existence of the certificate, putting the gist of the information to the applicant and providing the applicant with the opportunity to comment on both the existence of the certificate and the gist of the information under the certificate, exercising care and discretion not to disclose information which may enable the source of the confidential information to be revealed or identified.

Evidence provided by the applicant at hearing

1. The applicant gave evidence at his Tribunal hearing that was largely consistent with that he provided to the Department in his written application and at the Department interview, with some notable exceptions, as further discussed below.

2. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing before the Tribunal that:

• He was married in May 2019 in Australia however he divorced his wife a year later and remains single.

• He is Sunni and lived in the majority Sunni village of [Town 1]. When he was [age] years old he formed a relationship with [an age]-year-old Shia woman, [Partner A], who was from the majority Shia village of [Village 1], located around a ten-minute drive from his house.

• They met in March 2016 in a public garden and thereafter mainly met on Sundays. They continued a covert relationship together for around 16 months throughout the rest of 2016 until July 2017.

• The applicant gave evidence that he had planned to marry his then girlfriend under a civil marriage arrangement despite the difficulties anticipated due to it being an
  inter-sect marriage, however first the applicant planned to finish building the house he had started building in 2011 but which was taking a long time due to the need to progressively gather finance and building materials.

• His then girlfriend’s parents became aware of their secret relationship when the applicant’s then girlfriend refused to meet with potential marriage suitors arranged by her family. Under pressure from her mother asking her why she would not meet with the suitors, she admitted that she had been in an intimate relationship with the applicant for some time and wanted to marry him. Her family had reacted very badly to this news.

• Soon after his girlfriend disclosed to her mother their relationship, she then telephoned the applicant to warn him that her parents now knew about their relationship and that members of her family were a danger to him and intended to kill him to take revenge for him having a forbidden relationship with her.

• Upon hearing this news, the applicant panicked and following the call, destroyed his telephone and from that time had no further contact with his ex-girlfriend until recently, when intermediaries contacted her on his behalf, regarding her providing a statement for his case.

• He told the Tribunal that his only option was to run and that he did not think they had the option of running away together as he feared his girlfriend would also then be at greater risk, as well as him, and that by doing so they would be committing the additional crime of eloping, on top of having already had a forbidden relationship.

• A day or two after this last telephone conversation with his ex-girlfriend, the applicant was driving his car through the [Village 1], which was unavoidable for him as it is the main road connecting and going in and out of his own village, when his ex-girlfriend’s brothers and other men holding sticks and stones started throwing rocks at his car. The applicant had to take aversive action and quickly drove off to escape.

• The applicant felt his life was in immediate danger and so he drove straight to his house, told his parents what had happened and also told them that he had to immediately leave for Beirut to protect his life, as he thought it was safer for them if they thought he was somewhere in Beirut. However, he did not go to Beirut as he told his family but rather his friend took him to his house in [Village 2], a neighbouring mixed Sunni and Christian village, to stay a while and to give him space to decide what to do. He disclosed to his friend the reason for him coming to stay but no one else.

• He stayed with his friend for around one month. During that month he remained very fearful and lived in hiding. His whereabouts were not discovered. His friend kept him updated as to what was going on in the community, based on the conversations he was hearing from young men living in the area. His friend heard that his ex-girlfriend’s older brothers were asking around where he was and trying to track him down, making threats that they planned to take revenge for him having had a forbidden relationship with their sister. These reports confirmed the applicant’s fear that his ex-girlfriend’s family wanted to pursue revenge against him and that there was no chance of solving the problem with them through a negotiated process.

• During the period at his friend’s house, he returned to his family home at [Town 1] once or twice at night-time to collect his things. His family thought he was visiting them from Beirut, as he had earlier told them he would ‘disappear’ there, and he had not told them that he was hiding at his friend’s house in [Village 2]. As far as he is aware, his
  ex-girlfriend’s family members did not visit his family home looking for him.

• After around one month of him living in hiding at his friend’s house, his friend asked him to leave his house as his friend felt it had become too risky for him to continue hiding the applicant, as everyone in the community was talking about the forbidden relationship and his ex-girlfriend’s [older] brothers’ threats to find the applicant and take revenge against him. His friend was fearful and did not want to become further involved in the applicant’s problem and so asked him to leave his house.  

• The applicant felt that he was not safe in Lebanon and decided his only option was to leave Lebanon. He asked his friend to drive him to the airport and as he already had a visa to travel to Australia, he left Lebanon immediately and arrived in Australia [in] August 2017.

• Since being in Australia he has not had contact with his ex-girlfriend’s family members, however through his recent contact via intermediaries with his ex-girlfriend, he has heard both from her and from the local Mukhtar that the issue of his previous relationship has not been forgotten or resolved by his ex-girlfriend’s family members and that they remain motivated to take their revenge upon the applicant if he returns to Lebanon.  

Discussion of the applicant’s evidence including credibility assessment

1. In assessing the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal notes that the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear, that the fear is ‘well founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. A fear of persecution is not ‘well founded’ if it is merely assumed or if it is mere speculation. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicants themselves, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make out the applicant’s case for them. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (see MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at

   
   

   169–70.

2. In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on the claims he or she has made. This may involve an assessment of the applicant’s credibility and, in doing so, the Tribunal is aware of the need, and importance of, being sensitive to the difficulties asylum seekers often face. Accordingly, the Tribunal notes that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible, but unable to substantiate all their claims.

3. On the other hand, as stated previously, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all allegations made by an applicant. In addition, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been established. Nor is the Tribunal obliged to accept claims that are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in the applicant’s country of nationality (see Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J, Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547).

4. In conducting its review and assessing the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal has had careful regard for all of the material that was before the Department, including the applicant’s written protection visa application, the audio recording of the applicant’s interview with a delegate of the Department, and the written responses and additional documents submitted on his behalf by his representative following the interview. The Tribunal has also had the benefit of considering the additional documentary evidence submitted by the applicant to the Tribunal both before and after his hearing to substantiate aspects of his claims, including evidence that responds to some of the credibility issues raised by the delegate at the primary stage, as well as the applicant’s testimony provided at the Tribunal’s hearing of his case.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant several questions regarding his evidence and also regarding how some of the documents submitted by his legal advisor had come into existence as set out in the subheadings below.

Applicant responses to specific apparent inconsistencies in his evidence

1. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that he had told the Department in his interview that his ex-girlfriend’s parents had ‘sent some people to his parents’ house to tell them what happened and tell them they would seek revenge’. The applicant explained that this was not quite right, because as far as he knew, no one came directly to his parents’ house to threaten them, however his parents were very aware of what was going on and had heard through others in the community that his ex-girlfriend’s family were looking for the applicant to take revenge against him. The applicant clarified that his parents heard through general sources that he was being sought after by his ex-girlfriend’s family and not due to people coming directly to their house to threaten their plan to take revenge against the applicant.

2. The applicant said that during the interview he had tried to speak in English for some of it, but he was not fluent and had poor expression, and only parts of the interview were translated. It was therefore easy for misunderstandings or inaccuracies to result. The Tribunal has listened to the Department interview and formed a view that the lack of translation of all evidence provided by the applicant did place him at a clear disadvantage and may have resulted in inaccuracies arising in the delegate’s understanding of his evidence.

3. The applicant’s account of events at his Tribunal hearing did not include any mention of him reporting the threats he faced to the Lebanese police. This is contrary to what was written in his protection visa application, which states in response to the question ‘Did this applicant seek help within the country or those countries after the harm?’ to which the applicant’s migration agent wrote:

   yes, I did try to talk to the police in the area and was rebuffed as they said this was family issue and to be honest I felt that they did not want to help me at all as they did not want to interfere as this became more Shiite and Sunni rather than a family altercation. I was even told by an officer to try and solve the issue amicably because that was a hot issue and their interference would not be tolerated and they cannot do anything for me. to the contrary if a complaint was lodged against me they would be forced to act against me.

1. The Tribunal also noted that in his interview with the Department, the applicant told the case officer that he went to the police station about two or three days after he was attacked while driving and reported that his ex-girlfriend’s family was threatening to kill him. Whereas the applicant’s evidence at his Tribunal hearing, was that it was not the applicant who reported the threats to police but rather his brother, and a copy of the police report (and translation) made by his brother on [the day in] July 2017 was provided to the Tribunal, as further discussed below.

2. On the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, the apparent inconsistency was limited to who had reported the threats to the police, not whether they were reported to the police or not. The applicant stated that the information he provided at his hearing was correct: it was his brother who reported the threats to the police, not him. In terms of how this apparent inconsistency arose in his protection visa application form, the applicant explained at the hearing that his original migration agent who completed his form likely misunderstood what he had told him, as the agent had prepared his application without the assistance of an interpreter despite the migration agent having only limited fluency in Arabic, and when the applicant had only limited fluency in English. He explained that these circumstances created a high risk his agent may have misunderstood what he had told him or his agent may have made an assumption that when he told his agent the threat had been reported to the police, the agent mistakenly assumed that it was him, the applicant, who did so.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he has attempted to have any kind of reconciliation with his ex-girlfriend’s family either when he was still in Lebanon or any time since. The applicant responded that there had been no attempts as his ex-girlfriend’s family would not reconcile until they ‘get what they want’. The Tribunal noted that this was different from what was said in his initial protection visa application form, which said ‘I tried with my family to reconcile with them and of course offered to marry her, which was my intentions from the beginning.’ The applicant responded that this statement in his application form was partially but not fully correct, as while he had wanted to marry her and would have offered to marry her, there had been no discussion he was aware of between his family and her family at any time, and nor had there been any attempt at reconciliation.

Impact upon assessment of credibility caused by lack of interpretation provided at earlier stages of the process

1. The Tribunal notes on an examination of the applicant’s protection visa application form that he was assisted by a registered migration agent in preparing his application form and that the agent submitted a 956 appointment of representative form to the Department on the same date the protection visa application was signed. Thus, it can be concluded that the applicant was assisted as claimed by a registered migration agent in preparing his application.

2. While ordinarily the appointment of a properly registered migration agent should be sufficient for the Tribunal to be able to assume it can rely upon the contents of what is written on the form by the agent as being based on proper instructions provided by the applicant, in this case however, the Tribunal also observes the lack of detail regarding the applicant’s protection claims provided in the application with the responses provided in the relevant sections of the form  being notably brief, poorly drafted in broken English, without punctuation and in incomplete sentences: characteristics which collectively suggest carelessness, a lack of attention to detail, and overall low-quality assistance in the preparation of the applicant’s application.

3. In assessing any apparent inconsistencies between the applicant’s claims at different stages of the application and review process, the Tribunal also needs to consider how his original protection visa application was prepared, including whether proper interpreting was used as needed to ensure the instructions provided by the applicant could be accurately conveyed by the migration agent onto the application form. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s testimony that his migration agent did not engage an interpreter to take instructions from the applicant despite the agent’s limited Arabic language skills and despite the applicant’s limited English language skills. The Tribunal observed at the hearing conducted in December 2024 that the applicant consistently relied upon the Arabic interpreter throughout his hearing, including for multiple points of clarification, as the applicant’s English language skills remained limited. His English language skills some seven years earlier in 2017, at the time his protection visa application form was completed, would likely have been significantly lower than at the current time.

4. The Tribunal also notes from listening to the recording of the applicant’s interview with the delegate in 2019, that throughout the Department interview the applicant mainly tried to provide his responses in English, with the interpreter used only sporadically throughout the interview despite the applicant’s basic and faltering level of English language skills. Again, the Tribunal is mindful in considering the degree to which it can rely on the applicant’s statements having been accurately made at his interview in order to test the consistency and credibility of his claims, when the approach to interpreting permitted by the delegate conducting the interview undoubtedly created conditions where mistakes and misunderstandings based on language were much more likely to occur, than had the applicant consistently used the interpreter as he clearly needed to.

5. For the above reasons, the Tribunal therefore accepts the reasonableness of the applicant’s explanation for apparent inconsistencies identified between his original application, his Departmental interview and his evidence at the hearing and therefore must extend the benefit of the doubt to the applicant where relevant on these points. The Tribunal accepts that these apparent inconsistencies could well have arisen due to inaccuracies caused by language misunderstandings and not due to the applicant providing different accounts of events on different occasions or in other words, due to him being an unreliable witness.

Overall conclusions regarding applicant’s credibility

1. The Tribunal’s role is to make a de novo decision, taking into consideration all the information before it. This includes careful assessment of the reasons for the primary decision-maker’s adverse credibility findings and consideration of all the new material and other factors impacting on the process which are apparent to the Tribunal. Aside from the deficiencies in interpretation as highlighted in the sections above, the Tribunal is also mindful that processing of the applicant’s application has taken place over a protracted period of time, also increasing the likelihood of inaccuracy creeping into the applicant’s multiple accounts of the same events which have been documented on several occasions over a period of more than seven years.

2. In addition, the Tribunal also takes into account that, at least in recent months and possibly for a much longer period throughout the application process, the applicant has suffered from mental health issues. These have only recently been identified and have not been the subject of comprehensive specialised assessment but rather have been identified as involving stress-induced ‘panic attacks’. More detailed information concerning the applicant’s mental health would have been helpful to the Tribunal’s consideration of how this issue may interact with his presentation and with the risks he may face in Lebanon. However, even the limited medical information submitted provides a sufficient basis to alert the Tribunal to the need to factor in the applicant’s less than robust mental health to assessment of apparent discrepancies in the applicant’s evidence at different stages of the refugee determination process. This is especially relevant to his presentation when he is under pressure to perform, such as at his Departmental interview or in the Tribunal hearing, which the medical report highlights is when he is most susceptible to panic attacks and which fortunately were not triggered during his Tribunal hearing.  

3. While the Tribunal is not entirely satisfied with all aspects of the applicant’s testimony, in considering the procedural challenges presenting in this case, which have been caused by the combination of the lack of interpretation that have infected the applicant’s application from the outset, as well as the length of time that has elapsed between the different stages of the process and the issues this ordinarily creates with the accuracy of human memory, and further compounded by the applicant’s known mental health issues, the Tribunal has concluded that despite the difficulties identified with some aspects of the applicant’s testimony, he is a generally credible witness. 

Other aspects of the applicant’s evidence at the hearing

Applicant’s evidence regarding his departure from Lebanon

1. The applicant gave evidence that he did not encounter any difficulties or issues when he was leaving in 2017 via Beirut airport, consistent with what he informed the delegate at his Department interview.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he already had plans to come to Australia prior to the problem he experienced with his ex-girlfriend, as he already had an earlier visitor visa application to Australia on foot, which was granted on 17 June 2017. He explained that around a year before the problem, he had been intending to come to Australia for a family wedding, and so had applied for a visa but after it was taking so long, he had missed the wedding and had already forgotten about it. He agreed that the timing of the grant of the visa was very fortunate as it matched when he quickly needed to leave Lebanon due to the problem with his ex-girlfriend’s family. He also added that he had previously visited Australia to attend another family wedding back in 2011 and that he had arrived and stayed in Australia for two months and then departed as planned, as he did not have any difficulties in Lebanon at that time. The Tribunal notes that this information is consistent with the information provided by the Department in its protection visa decision, which indicates that the applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2011 and then departed Australia [in] May 2011.

Assessment of submitted police report made by applicant’s brother

1. The Tribunal asked how his brother (now passed away) became involved and the applicant answered that his brother was aware of what was happening as he lived in the family home with his parents. His brother was afraid for the applicant so he reported the attack upon the applicant to the police on the applicant’s behalf.

2. The Tribunal asked how he had obtained the police report claimed to be made by his deceased brother that had been submitted to the Tribunal in December 2024 and why it had not been provided earlier. The applicant explained that at the time of his Department interview his lawyer pulled out of attending with him at the last minute and so he was not represented at the interview and he did not know at that time the things he should or could do to provide evidence of his case. He explained that he received the police report via his father, as his father knew that his brother had earlier reported the threat to him to the police.  His father went in-person to the police station and asked for the record, which they had retained, as they retain files for longer than the seven years that has passed since the report was made.

3. The Tribunal asked how the applicant had received the police report from his father. The applicant explained that his father told him by telephone in 2023 that he had obtained a copy of the police report. Then when his mother needed to have planned surgery in [Country 1] later that year, the applicant went to [Country 1] from [dates in] November 2023 to be with his mother and asked his father to bring the police report with him from Lebanon, so he could then decide if it might be useful for his case. He received the report from his father in person while he was in [Country 1] in November 2023. He then showed the report to his current lawyer, who he had only retained in August 2024, and she agreed it would be useful to submit with the other documents she planned to submit. The Departmental records of the applicant’s travel and movements confirms the applicant’s account that he left and returned to Australia in November 2023, as per his claim that he met with his father in [Country 1] where he received the police report in person. This does help to confirm that the applicant received the report via the means he claims.   

4. The Tribunal highlighted to the applicant how the dates in the police report do not readily match up with his current and earlier accounts of the timing or sequence of how he has described the sequence of events claimed. The date of the police report indicates that the applicant’s brother attended the police station to make the report on [the day in] July 2017. In his statement to police, the applicant’s brother says ‘about a week or ten days ago, we received threats from some young men from [Partner A’s] family that was directed to my brother [the applicant]. Because of that, my brother decided to leave the town and go to Beirut, and since then he has not returned to the town for fear that something bad might happen to him.’

5. This statement puts the date of the threats made against the applicant as occurring sometime between [specified dates in] July 2017, soon after the [earlier day in] July 2017, when the applicant has consistently claimed that his relationship with his girlfriend was consummated, and consistent with the sequence of events the applicant told the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal notes that at his Department interview, the applicant told the delegate that the telephone call from his then girlfriend to warn him that her parents were aware of their relationship occurred ‘about two weeks later’ after the [earlier date in] July 2017 and that the attack upon him while he was driving through [Village 1] occurred ‘about a week later’. If the Tribunal were to rely on this account, the telephone call with his ex-partner would have occurred around [a later day in] July 2017, and the attack on his car would have occurred around [a week later], some nine days later than the date his brother purportedly attended the police station to report the threats against the applicant.

6. While the Tribunal is not entirely satisfied with the applicant’s evidence on these timing issues, given the combination of the interpreting issues experienced during the Department interview and the length of time since his Departmental interview some five years ago, the Tribunal is willing to also extend to the applicant the benefit of the doubt on these issues and accept the testimony of the applicant as he provided at his hearing, which are consistent with the dates provided in the police report.

7. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s account and the reasonableness of his explanations regarding how he obtained the police report and why it was only recently provided to the Tribunal. On the face of the document provided, the Tribunal has no reason to believe it is not a genuine copy of a police report made by the applicant’s brother in 2017. The Tribunal notes the report content corroborates several core aspects of the applicant’s claims, including his claim that:

• He fell in love with a woman by the name of [Partner A] and wanted to marry her.

• Young men from her family made threats to take revenge against the applicant and kill the applicant due to his forbidden relationship with her.

• The applicant had fled to Beirut and not returned due to these threats, which is consistent with the applicant’s testimony that to protect his family members he told them he planned to hide in Beirut, even though he actually hid at his friend’s house in the close-by village of [Village 2] during the rest of July and August 2017.

Assessment of statement dated 25 November 2024 from applicant’s ex-girlfriend and her civil birth extract

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant how his recent contact with his ex-girlfriend came about, given his claimed lack of contact with her since the telephone call she made to him in July 2017 to warn him that her parents knew about their relationship. He responded that when his case was before the Department, he had not known what evidence or proof he should try to bring. However, when his case came to the Tribunal, he had a different and better lawyer who explained to him the importance of obtaining evidence of what had happened and discussed with him what evidence he could possibly obtain which would be useful. Based on this advice, the applicant told the Tribunal he had then contacted his friend whose house he hid at in [Village 2], via telephone and messages, who was then able to make contact with the Mukhtar from [Village 2], who through his position was able to contact his ex-girlfriend in a discreet way that also would not get her into further trouble, to see if she was willing to provide a statement confirming events related to their previous relationship.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he had received the statement provided by his
   ex-girlfriend and her civil birth extract dated [in] August 2024 confirming her identity, including her name, date of birth and place of birth being [Village 1], her Shia religion and her single marital status. He said it was via a telephone and message exchange with his friend. The Tribunal asked if he could submit a translated version of the message exchange documenting how the statement from his ex-girlfriend had been arranged and received and the applicant confirmed that he would.

3. Following the hearing, the applicant’s representative submitted a translated copy of a message exchange between the applicant with someone named ‘[Friend A]’ on 28 November 2024, commencing with an outgoing message from the applicant saying ‘Did you go to him?’, followed by an unanswered outgoing call from the applicant to [Friend A], followed by a ten-second voice message response from [Friend A], then attached is a photograph of the statement in Arabic from the applicant’s ex-girlfriend that was submitted to the Tribunal, followed by a four-minute incoming telephone call from [Friend A] to the applicant. While the information that can be gleaned from this exchange is far from comprehensive, the Tribunal considers this evidence does tend to corroborate the applicant’s account of when and how he came to receive the statement from his
   ex-girlfriend.

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he thought his ex-girlfriend might be motivated to provide a statement to assist his case, given that he had in essence abandoned her, had not had subsequent contact with her and that reaching out to her may create fresh risks to her from her own family and community of ‘stirring up’ or re-visiting the forbidden relationship that had already ended many years ago. The applicant responded that the reason he thought she might be willing to help him was because there had been true love between them when they were together. He admitted that when he reached out to her via his friend that he did not know what her attitude might be towards him now, but by contacting her via the Mukhtar he thought the contact could be discreetly managed and reduce any possible risk to her, plus she always had the option not to assist him if she felt it was too risky to her. He added that his love for her was genuine at the time they were together and that it remains genuine now and he thought that perhaps she still felt the same way also. He further added that he would have taken her out of her situation with her family if he had been able to, rather than leaving her. He stated that he still has feelings for her now and would like to try again to be with her, if possible, but that they could only be together in another country outside of Lebanon.

1. The Tribunal asked why he thought his ex-girlfriend’s family would continue to have any problem with him when it appears from his ex-girlfriend’s letter that she is continuing to live with her own family, which might suggest she does not face any ongoing serious threat from them. The applicant responded that it was not possible to tell from the limited information in her letter whether or not she faced any ongoing threat or harm from her own family. It just said that she continues to live with them. He added it also says she is a single woman, which may indicate she has never been able to marry, which is consistent with his claim that this is due to her reputation being ruined by her having had a relationship with him. He also added that as she told her family the truth from an early point, they may have taken mercy on her and may instead have taken the view that it was all his fault for leading her astray. He said if they had excused her and accepted her, this may also increase the pressure on her family to hold him accountable for what had happened, as according to traditions someone must always be held accountable for these cases for their family honour to be restored, as without this step the offence against the family’s honour does not go away even over a long period of time.

2. Based on examination of this evidence regarding how the applicant claims to have obtained these documents and the context in which he claims they were obtained, the Tribunal has concluded that it is more likely than not that the statement purportedly from the applicant’s ex-girlfriend and the copy of her birth extract are genuine documents that do tend to corroborate several important central aspects of the applicant’s protection claims including confirming that:

• The applicant had a relationship with a Shia woman and confirming her identity.

• She continues to live with her family although she is considered a disgrace to her family.

• She has been unable to subsequently marry due to harm done to her reputation caused by the forbidden relationship she had with the applicant.

• Her family continue to harbour intentions to take revenge against the applicant and they plan to kill him ‘no matter how long it will take them to do so’, ‘even for twenty years to come’, as ‘this issue cannot be forgotten or forgiven’.

• Despite the harm caused to her by the relationship she had with the applicant, she still wishes him ‘safety and peace’.

• She had authorised the Mukhtar to obtain her civil birth extract on her behalf and provide it with the statement.

Assessment of statement dated 7 January 2025 from local Mukhtar involved in taking
ex-girlfriend’s statement and providing her civil birth extract

1. At the hearing the Tribunal asked a series of questions about the involvement of the local Mukhtar in obtaining the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s statement and her birth extract dated [in] August 2024, some months prior to her statement of 25 November 2024. As these issues in question went beyond the personal knowledge of either the applicant or the applicant’s representative, the applicant’s representative undertook to seek further clarification, if possible, from the Mukhtar regarding his role in this process and the reason for the August date of the birth extract.

2. Following the hearing, the applicant submitted a copy and translation of a statement dated 7 January 2025 made by [Official A], Mukhtar for [Village 2], town of
   

   [2] [Source deleted.].

   Miniyeh–Danniyeh, Northern Governorate, Ministry of Interior and Municipalities. Through an online search, the Tribunal was able to confirm that the name of the Mukhtar in the statement provided largely matches the name of one of the two Mukhtars for [Village 2] listed online as ‘[Official A name variant]’.[2] This close name match confirms to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that the statement submitted by the applicant purportedly by [Official A], Mukhtar for [Village 2], is a genuine statement from one of the two [Village 2] Mukhtars.

3. The statement provided by [Official A] corroborates the process through which his

   
   

   ex-girlfriend’s statement and the date of her identity documents were obtained. It confirms that:

• Birth extracts in Lebanon are valid for one year. The birth extract for the applicant’s
  ex-girlfriend was already in existence and held in the Mukhtar’s file prior to the request being made via the Mukhtar for the applicant’s ex-girlfriend to provide a supporting statement. Tribunal’s note: This explains the earlier date of the birth extract (August 2024) compared to the ex-girlfriend’s statement (November 2024).

• Ordinarily it is very difficult to contact the applicant’s ex-girlfriend as she is under constant supervision by her family.

• As Mukhtars are responsible for routinely maintaining updated civil records, this purpose provided a way for the Mukhtar to discreetly contact the applicant’s
  ex-girlfriend without drawing attention to her as doing anything out of the usual.

1. The statement provided by [Official A] goes beyond the issues regarding the process of obtaining the ex-girlfriend’s statement and documentation and confirms several other important aspects of the applicant’s protection claims, including:

• That the problem the applicant faces with his ex-girlfriend’s family is known within the community.

• His opinion that the applicant would be targeted by his ex-girlfriend’s family if he were to return to the community, as the applicant’s previous mistake has not been forgotten.

• His opinion that there is growing tension caused by sectarian differences between the families and that these issues are not taken lightly in the local context. However, it is also not unusual that the applicant’s family has not been the subject of attack by the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family in the meanwhile, as ‘according to our Sacred Book it is said: Every person is responsible for his actions.’

• His opinion that the applicant could not be protected if he returned to the community as no one is able to intervene in such cases.  

1. The Tribunal accepts the genuineness of the Mukhtar’s statement and gives weight to his opinions as a local authority with strong local knowledge of the dynamics and issues within the particular families of the local community in issue. The Tribunal also notes that these opinions also corroborate similar opinions separately provided by the applicant’s ex-girlfriend, who the Tribunal accepts would be best positioned to know if her family continue to pose a threat to the applicant or not. 

Applicant’s evidence regarding ex-girlfriend’s family’s response to date and profile

1. The Tribunal asked why his ex-girlfriend’s family members would not have visited his family home if they were looking for him or why her family would not take up the issue of the forbidden relationship with his parents. The applicant responded that they already knew he was not at his home at that time and that his ex-girlfriend’s family were looking for him and targeting him, not his family. He added this was also why his ex-girlfriend’s family had not caused ongoing problems for his parents in [Town 1], because they confined their need for revenge and accountability to him as he was the one they saw was responsible for what happened to their daughter and sister.

2. He added that families pursuing honour-related revenge often pretend things are calm but then secretly make plans to carry out their revenge at the right moment, as occurred to the young Sunni man who married a Druze woman against her family’s wishes, in the reported case from 2012. The applicant highlighted that in that case, her family pretended they wanted to meet with the man to discuss how to solve the problem but instead when he arrived they grievously attacked him. He fears the similar ‘quiet’ from his ex-girlfriend’s family cannot be taken as an indication they have no continuing problem with him, but rather they are waiting for their moment to strike him, once he is back in Lebanon and therefore within their reach. He added that as far as he knew, her family had never complained about the issue to the police but this also reinforced his fear that they planned to deal with the problem themselves and maintained a more sinister plan to carry out once he returned rather than simply going to police.

3. He also added that in addition to the honour issue about the intimate relationship outside of marriage, there is on top of this the sectarian issue, where Shia are motivated to harm Sunni people because ‘if they kill a Sunni they will go to heaven. This is doctrine and tradition.’ The Tribunal indicated that it did not accept the applicant’s statement of
   deep-seated hatred by Shia against Sunni’s in Lebanon, although acknowledged country information indicating that inter-sect tensions can be ignited and religious leaders from each of the two sects do often need to work hard to try to de-escalate tensions between the groups, indicating there are underlying tensions that can easily escalate unless they are actively managed. The applicant added that each group is constantly looking for excuses to provoke each other and it is easy for an inter-sect forbidden relationship case, like his, to become the source for an inter-sect flare up, and that is what he is worried about.

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there was anything significant regarding the background or characteristics of his ex-girlfriend’s family. He responded that he does not know so much about her family, except that they are from a large tribe known as the [name] tribe; they are religiously conservative; they are rural people and her father is a farmer who owns a large piece of land but is average in wealth. He added that he did not know if her family have any specific connections with Hezbollah, as people do not talk about these connections openly, although added that 99% of Shia families have connections with Hezbollah and he fears that if he returns, Hezbollah members will help his ex-girlfriend’s family members to pursue him, as this is what usually happens.

Applicant’s evidence on relocation issues

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he would be safer if he moved to another part of Lebanon on his return. The applicant said he did not have family living elsewhere in Lebanon and that without family contacts and help it would be very difficult for him to move to another area as a stranger. People are very suspicious of new people coming in, especially since the recent war as newcomers can bring risks to the community. People are suspicious of those who live away from their families, which signals they have problems. He would not be able to rent a house as any potential landlord would contact his local area for a character reference and would find out that he had an ongoing problem from his previous forbidden relationship. No one would want to rent their house to someone who is expected to face problems.

2. The Tribunal asked why he could not live in Beirut, given it was a mixed and large city where it was likely easier to be anonymous, and also how he would support himself if he was living in Beirut. He responded that even though Beirut is a big city, each small area still has people checking who is there and their background. He would struggle to live and support himself, as other people struggle due to the bad economy, low wages, lack of jobs. The Tribunal asked if he has savings or could sell his business so he could return with a good amount of money to support him while he re-established himself there. The applicant responded that he does not have a big income, business or savings in Australia and that any money he could take with him would not last for long and there are no jobs or other ways to support himself due to the poor economy and the effects of the recent war.

3. The Tribunal asked whether he thought anyone from his local area would find out, if or when, he had returned to Lebanon, especially if he just stayed in Beirut from the time of his arrival. He responded that Shia people control the airports and that there would be Shia people working at the airport connected with her family who would inform them straight away.

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant, if he was able to re-enter Lebanon without them informing her family, whether it would be difficult for them to find him another way at a later point. He responded that it would be very easy for them to find him, as all that is needed is to ask some questions about his whereabouts through their social networks which spread all across the country and this is how Lebanese people find each other all the time. It would be very easy for them to locate him wherever he was in Lebanon.

Applicant’s evidence of effectiveness of state protection and fears on return

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he did experience any threat, whether the police would be able to protect him. The applicant responded that the police are useless and anyway will not get involved in a family honour case of this kind. This is exactly the kind of case they refuse to help with as they see it as a family issue to be solved in the family, not with the police.

2. The Tribunal asked what he fears would happen to him upon his return to Lebanon. He responded that he fears he would be killed, tortured or maimed by his ex-girlfriend’s family. The Tribunal asked why they would still be motivated to harm him some seven years later when there are no signs they plan to pursue him. The applicant responded that they are waiting for their chance to harm him for when he returns and that ‘they will never forget the thing that happened and they will never let it go.’ He added that his
   ex-girlfriend says her family still plan to harm him and she would be best positioned to know this.

Findings of fact regarding applicant’s protection claims

1. In light of the Tribunal’s overall assessment of the applicant’s credibility and the supportive documentation put forward in support of his case, the following findings are made:

• The applicant is a Sunni man from [Town 1] and had an intimate premarital relationship between March 2016 and July 2017 with a young woman, [Partner A], who is from a conservative Shia family from the neighbouring village of [Village 1].

• In July 2017, her parents and brothers became aware of the relationship and reacted badly to this news, threatening that they would take revenge and planned to kill the applicant. Soon after they became aware of the relationship, she telephoned the applicant and warned him that he was at risk of harm from her family who planned to take revenge against him.

• Her brothers and other men connected to her family attacked the applicant’s car with stones when the applicant drove close to [Village 1] in order to get on to the main connecting road from [Town 1].

• The applicant immediately went into hiding at his friend’s house in [Village 2] and heard from his friend that her brothers were searching for the applicant with a view to carrying out revenge against him if they found him.

• On [the day in] July 2017, the applicant’s brother, now deceased due to an accident, reported to the police that his brother, the applicant, was being threatened by his ex-girlfriend’s family members who wanted to take revenge against him and kill him due to his forbidden relationship. The Tribunal accepts the genuineness of the copy and translation of the police report made by the applicant’s brother to the police at that time regarding these threats.

• The applicant was able to evade his ex-girlfriend’s family members by hiding at his friend’s house for around one month. When his friend asked him to leave his house as he felt it had become too risky to continue hiding the applicant, this catalysed the applicant’s decision to leave Lebanon. The applicant left Lebanon and travelled to Australia at the end of August 2017 on the visitor visa he had already been issued some time earlier to attend another family wedding in Australia.

• The applicant has not had any direct or indirect contact with his ex-girlfriend’s family members from the time they attacked his car, until the current time.

• The applicant has not had any direct contact with his ex-girlfriend since she called to warn him that he was in danger from her family in July 2017, until the current date.

• The applicant initiated indirect contact with her in late 2024 via his friend from [Village 2] who sought out the assistance of the [Village 2] Mukhtar to make contact with her in a discreet way to see if she might be willing to provide a statement confirming their past relationship and subsequent events.

• She agreed and provided a statement confirming their previous relationship, the impact it has had on her life opportunities and her view that her family remains committed and intent to take revenge upon the applicant if he returns to Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that the letter dated 25 November 2024 is a genuine letter from [Partner A].

• The Tribunal also accepts that [Official A], is a Mukhtar for [Village 2] and that his statement dated 7 January 2025 is a genuine statement based on his personal knowledge of the local situation and families in the area as a local Mukhtar.

• The statement confirms his role in facilitating contact with the applicant’s ex-girlfriend and taking her statement and receiving her authority to provide her civil identity documentation. His statement also confirmed that the applicant’s problem with his
  ex-girlfriend’s family is known in the local community and in his opinion, the threats presented to the applicant by his ex-girlfriend’s family remain current and serious, and that the applicant would lack protection from these threats if he returned to the local area.  

The scope of the Tribunal’s task

1. The Tribunal’s task is to undertake a forward-looking assessment of what risks the applicant may face in the current context and foreseeable future in Lebanon and the reasons why he may face these risks. In undertaking this assessment, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s particular circumstances based on his identity and claims. These centre around him facing harm due to a previous inter-sect relationship where he claims the woman’s family remain motivated and committed to taking revenge and killing him if he were to return, in circumstances where he fears he would not receive effective protection from this risk from any authority or other source. This is the issue at the heart of the applicant’s case and the primary basis upon which he fears treatment amounting to serious harm in the future in Lebanon.

2. In making this assessment, the Tribunal must not only assess if it is safe or not for the applicant to return to his home area in Lebanon, but also whether he can reduce any risks he may face by relocating to another part of Lebanon. In making the assessment of whether any risk he may face meets the thresholds of a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm, the Tribunal must consider the findings of fact made against the evidence put forward by the applicant to establish that he, in particular, faces specific risks, also taking into consideration and weighing relevant country information to indicating the existence or not of such risks.  

3. This also requires assessment of how the applicant’s particular profile and characteristics may interface with broader risks associated with the volatile security, political and economic environment in contemporary Lebanon. The escalation in armed conflict which occurred between September and November 2024 killed close to 4,000 and injured around 16,000 Lebanese people[3] and has ongoing impacts including due to widespread damage to infrastructure and public services across Lebanon. The ceasefire put in place in late November 2024 remains very fragile with both parties alleging the other has continuously violated it since the outset and with no guarantees that outright conflict will not resume again if the remaining steps of the ceasefire, including Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, should fail to be implemented. 

   [3] Reuters, Costs of Israel-Hezbollah conflict on Lebanon, Israel | Reuters, 28 November 2024.

1. The opinion contains views and information that is largely consistent with other country information referred to above, although the Tribunal notes that the evidence contained in the opinion does not necessarily fully support the scope of the statements made in the opinion regarding the claimed numbers, frequency or pervasiveness of honour attacks in Lebanon, especially those concerning men, with only one specific case discussed. Recognising that the opinion is provided by a Lebanese lawyer with relevant local knowledge and particular expertise in international criminal law, the Tribunal gives it some weight as corroborative evidence, although the findings of the Tribunal do not turn on this opinion.

Conclusion on real chance of serious harm and real risk of significant harm

1. Based on all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does face a ‘real chance’ of being ‘seriously harmed’ and a ‘real risk’ of ‘significant harm’ by his
   ex-girlfriend’s family members if he were to return to his home community in Lebanon. In making these findings, the Tribunal has placed weight on the credible evidence submitted to the Tribunal from two relevant witnesses who are present either in the specific family or community concerned and therefore likely to have direct knowledge of continuing threats made against the applicant. The Tribunal has also placed some weight on the available country information which confirms that several features of the applicant’s circumstances may render his transgression of social norms to be perceived by his ex-girlfriend’s family, a rural, socially and religiously conservative family, as particularly serious in nature, increasing the risks he may face from them, these being: the inter-sect nature of the applicant’s relationship, alongside dominant patriarchal norms in rural, and socially and religiously conversative communities in Lebanon and in particular the link often drawn between premarital loss of virginity and the matter of family honour, which can also result in the commission of crimes of family honour, mainly against women but also sometimes against men involved in forbidden relationships with women.

2. The evidence before the Tribunal also supports a view that not only is there a ‘real chance’ or ‘real risk’ of the applicant facing harm from his ex-girlfriend’s family, but also that the type of treatment he may face is of a serious nature. The police report and two witness statements both say that his ex-girlfriend’s family threaten or intend to kill him or otherwise seriously harm him. The country information confirms this risk as it shows a clear pattern that where families are motivated to take action for offences against family honour, it often involves them killing, and in some cases torturing or maiming the victim.

3. These kinds of categories of potentially lethal or otherwise intentionally inflicted forms of grave physical harm, clearly meet the threshold to constitute ‘serious harm’ under the s 5J(5) refugee criteria as they involve threats to the applicant’s life and liberty, as well as acts of physical harassment and ill-treatment. They also meet the differently defined types of ‘significant harm’ provided for under the complementary protection criteria, involving threats of several of the specific harms countenanced in s 36(2A), including arbitrary deprivation of life, as well as potentially, torture, cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment.

Nexus to ‘essential and significant’ refugee ground

1. An important element of the refugee criteria, under s 5J(4)(a) is that the harm feared must be adequately linked, as the ‘essential and significant’ reason for the harm, to one or more of the five stated grounds, being due to a person’s race, religion, political opinion, nationality or membership of a particular social group.

2. In the current case, the Tribunal has already found that the inter-sect or inter-religious (Sunni–Shia) aspect of the applicant’s previous relationship is a major cause of the risk he now faces. While the inter-sect aspect is not the only reason why the applicant now faces harm, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is an essential and significant reason for the harm he faces and therefore the required degree of nexus with a refugee ground is met in this case.

Would relocation lower the risk faced by the application to below a ‘real chance’?

1. Having found that the applicant does face a real chance of serious harm in his home area, the Miniyeh–Danniyeh District in the Northern Governorate, it is also necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the risks he faces could be reduced to a level below a ‘real chance’ if he were to move to another location in Lebanon. This requires assessment of two main elements: Is there a real chance that the applicant’s
   ex-girlfriend’s family may be motivated and able to track the applicant down if he, for example, moved to Beirut? Then if so, would the police or any other relevant authorities be willing and able to effectively protect him from this threat?

2. The applicant’s evidence is that he would not be safe in any part of Lebanon, as he believes the family is motivated to harm him and therefore would not contain themselves to action against him in the Miniyeh–Danniyeh District. There is no other specific evidence addressing this point regarding the geographic scope of the applicant’s
   ex-girlfriend’s family’s motivation to seek him out to harm him. It is not a matter addressed in the statements of either of the witnesses who have personal knowledge of the state of intention of the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family members. However, as the Tribunal has accepted the evidence of both witnesses that the family concerned does remain highly motivated to take revenge against the applicant, it therefore cannot make an assumption, simply on the basis of an absence of specific evidence on this point, that they would not be motivated to pursue the applicant outside of the local area. Thus, the Tribunal cannot exclude or consider the risk ‘remote or fanciful’[15] that the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family may pursue the applicant beyond the
   

   [15] MIEA v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 293–295.

   Miniyeh–Danniyeh District to other locations in Lebanon.  

3. The next question is whether the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family would likely become aware of the applicant’s return to Lebanon. The applicant’s evidence is that news of his return will readily reach his ex-girlfriend’s family, either immediately through the presence of Shia airport personnel linked to Shia communities in his local area or through the later general circulation of such information through social and community networks. Whether the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family know of his return immediately or at some later time, matters little given the evidence that they have a longer-term motivation to harm him and may bide their time.

4. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s family would likely become aware of his return. It is difficult for the Tribunal to assess the likelihood of this occurring through airport staff conveying this to people in [Village 1] or to the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family, as there is a lack of country information available on this point. However, given the applicant is from a small rural community of [Town 1] and that people from neighbouring villages including [Village 1], regularly travel to and through the other neighbouring villages, it is at least foreseeable that news of the applicant’s return would flow between these close-knit communities and become known to the applicant’s
   ex-girlfriend’s family.

5. The applicant’s evidence is that once his ex-girlfriend’s family become aware he has returned to Lebanon, then it would be very easy for them to actually locate him, as Shia communities are present and connected throughout their various family networks and affinities across the country, including in Beirut. Based on the well-known strong and close-knit links within and between Lebanese families, extended families, tribes and sects, the Tribunal finds it would not be difficult for the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family to locate the applicant, even if he were living in Beirut. This is especially due to the increased difficulty of ‘blending in’ and living anonymously in the aftermath of the recent conflict when there was a need for heightened vigilance amongst neighbours to know who is living amongst them, and the increased conduct of background checks.

   Some landlords have already started declining tenants based on their origins. “We don’t know who they are; one of them could be from Hezbollah, and that puts us all at risk,” said Walid Yazbek, owner of a building in the Christian neighborhood of Achrafieh in Beirut. He told The Media Line that he only accepted people he knew and trusted after rejecting a young man from Dahiyeh, a friend of one of his tenants.[16]

   And also:

   For children and women, we welcome everyone, but we’re on high alert for every man coming into our neighborhood,” says 24-year-old Elee Jaber.[17] 

   [16] Taylor, T. ‘Caught Between Conflicts, Lebanon’s Christians Resist Displacement and Division’, 13 November 2024.

   [17] Rezvani, A. ‘Lebanon Christian neighborhood fears Hezbollah hides among war displaced’,13 November 2024.

6. In this environment, it is likely that the applicant’s neighbours would find out his background and who he is, especially as he would be arriving at  a time when ‘strangers’ are not welcome, he has not lived in Beirut before, does not have family in Beirut, and he may be viewed suspiciously for having been away from Lebanon for so long and returning at a time when the economic and security situation remains so tenuous. Their knowledge of his background and who he is would also make it easier for the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family to find him. The only way the applicant could live anonymously in Beirut is if he was able to take the extreme step of continuously living in hiding, indoors, and without working or moving around in public spaces. Even this may not be sufficient to avoid his detection for the foreseeable future, a horizon the Tribunal is required to take into account in its assessment. However, in any event the applicant would not be able to live in hiding for any significant period, especially given his lack of family and sustainable economic support in Beirut.

7. Therefore, based on the above findings that there is a real chance the applicant’s
   ex-girlfriend’s family are motivated to harm him outside of the Miniyeh–Danniyeh local area; they would likely become aware that he has returned to Lebanon; and they would be able to readily locate him; the next question is whether or not the relevant authorities, namely the police, would be able or willing to provide him effective protection from attack.

Availability of effective state protection

1. Regarding the level of state, police or other protection available to him in the
   Miniyeh–Danniyeh local area, before the Tribunal is a statement from a local Mukhtar, which is particularly credible due to his role which provides him with deep knowledge of the local context, including of the particular family and communities concerned. As noted earlier, it is of some significance that despite his role as a Mukhtar, who typically specialise in working to de-escalate local conflicts and resolve disputes, his statement says that no protection would be provided to the applicant if he returned to the local area as ‘no one could interfere in such matters’. A plain reading of his statement suggests that this lack of authority to intervene covers all potential sources of protection, including Mukhtars and other local authorities, such as himself, as well as police. This aligns with the applicant’s evidence that the police will not involve themselves in providing him with protection against an honour-related attack as they would consider it to be family-related and an issue to be resolved between families and not through the intervention of police.  

2. With regard to the inter-sect aspect of the applicant’s situation, the DFAT report states at paragraph [3.22] that ‘Lebanese authorities are generally committed to preventing violence between religious communities.’ However, this statement is made in the context of commenting on the role of authorities in addressing communal violence occurring between religious communities, rather than tensions arising from a given particular family situation, as in the applicant’s case. More relevant to the applicant’s circumstances, the DFAT report acknowledges police reluctance, especially at the local municipal level, to respond to reports of family violence because they see it as a family matter, confirming the evidence provided by the applicant on this issue of how police see family-related threats.  

   In-country sources report that many police still regard domestic violence as a family matter, with municipal police, in particular, reluctant to investigate.[18]

   Thus, multiple sources support a view that local police may be unwilling to protect the applicant from threats of, or actual violence, from his ex-girlfriend’s family members. 

   [18] DFAT County Report Lebanon, 26 June 2023, at para [3.56].

3. Aside from the question of the willingness of police to involve themselves and carry out their professional duties to investigate and where relevant, arrest suspects and bring charges, it is also necessary to address if police in the applicant’s local area and throughout Lebanon, have the actual capacity to effectively protect the applicant, even if they were willing.

4. The available country information supports a view that the severe strain of multiple compounding shocks on the Lebanese economy and the fragile security environment in the aftermath of a major armed conflict, have degraded the capacities of police. This has resulted in limited functioning law enforcement capacities across Lebanon, especially at the local level, which is particularly relevant, bearing in mind that in one scenario, the applicant would be living in a rural area and depending on local-level police capacities.

5. Country information indicates that well prior to the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon in 2024, many police had already been pressured by economic factors to desert their posts. The DFAT report confirms these issues highlighting the lack of effectiveness and functionality of the Municipal Police:

   The UNDP reports that Lebanon’s Municipal Police, who answer to local mayors, are ‘known to be the weakest link among Lebanon’s security agencies, and to command little authority and respect. They are considered to play a minimal role in ensuring security in cities, towns or municipalities.’ Municipal police are expected to ask for the support of the ISF ‘in the event of any crime or any disturbance of the public security’. They have been hit especially hard by the economic crisis. Municipalities’ sources of income are tax collection (which has been reduced significantly by the crisis), and central government funding (which, as of July 2022, had not been paid for two years). Sources report that, as at July 2022, most municipal police had not been paid for a year. Many municipalities have laid off police and sources report that their role has, to some degree, been replaced by vigilantism.[19]

   [19] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 26 June 2023, [5.7].

6. However, even at the ‘next level up’ a similar pattern of desertion has also plagued the Internal Security Forces (the ISF), the more highly trained and professionalised police force, due to unpaid and low value wages due to the impacts of multiple compounding crisis.[20] As stated by DFAT in June 2023, even prior to the more recent additional stresses on policing:

   The economic crisis has caused serious difficulties for the ISF and its personnel. Far fewer people have confidence in the ISF than the LAF, and many towns have created their own local patrols or neighbourhood watches to maintain law and order. The impact of the currency devaluation on ISF personnel has also been highly deleterious and led to desertions, with many ISF officers moonlighting in more lucrative roles. As a consequence, ISF command unofficially allows officers to serve only two to three days a week and to take an additional job. Some personnel are reportedly unable to reach their duty stations due to fuel shortages and the rise in transportation costs. [21]

   Also reported in the media:

   Over 1,000 Internal Security Forces members have deserted the service amidst devaluating wages and forcibly renewed contracts. [22]

   [20] These include the impacts of the national economic crisis commencing in 2019, ongoing economic and social impacts of COVID-19, the Beirut Port blast commencing from 2020, the impact on food prices caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine from 2022, and the continuing social impacts of internal displacement, and the influx of Lebanese people now returning from Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. 

   [21] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 26 June 2023, [5.6].

   [22]Abou Al Joud, S. ‘“If I come back I'll be sent to jail”: Why solving ISF desertion problem is complicated’ 27 May 2024, L’Orient Today.

7. In terms of more recent developments adding an overlayer or additional stresses on policing, police resources have been further overstretched by the need to manage the return of the 1.3 million people who were internally displaced due to conflict in 2024. The displacement resulting in the ‘mixing up’ of different Lebanese populations across the country has also caused heightened sectarian tensions, further increasing the demand for civil policing support.[23] While the widespread and intense aerial bombardments of Lebanon ended with the ceasefire in late November 2024, attacks by Israel in Lebanon have continued throughout the ceasefire, primarily, but not exclusively in southern Lebanon.[24] According to OCHA, around 100,000 people still remain displaced from their homes and in addition, around 100,000 people have recently returned to Lebanon from Syria, following the fall of the Assad regime.[25] These factors have all predictably added further pressure on already severely depleted civil policing capacities.

   [23] Clashes break out after Lebanese police evict displaced people from Beirut building – video | Lebanon | The Guardian, 23 October 2024.

   [24] OCHA Lebanon, ‘Flash Update #58, Escalation of hostilities in Lebanon as of 6 February 2025’, available at: Lebanon: Flash Update #58 - Escalation of hostilities in Lebanon, as of 06 February 2025 | OCHA

   [25] Ibid.

8. A consequence flowing from this lacuna in law enforcement capacity relevant to the applicant’s case, is that weak civil policing provides greater opportunities and space for those with criminal intent, such as the applicant’s ex-girlfriend’s family, to commit ‘ordinary’ crimes with impunity, across the country. There is also the issue of whether or not the applicant would likely have any prior notice he was about to be attacked, and therefore whether he would have any opportunity to try to access any level of state protection available. From a practical perspective, it is very difficult for any police force to protect people who are known to face a specific and targeted risk of attack, which could occur at any time or place, unless they are under some form of constant police protection or surveillance, which is clearly not going to be available to the applicant anywhere in Lebanon.  

9. On the basis of the country information and analysis above, the Tribunal finds that the Lebanese state authorities including police and local government and religious authorities, such as Mukhtars, will not be able to provide effective protection to the applicant from the risk of his ex-girlfriend’s family harming him in either his home area of the Miniyeh–Danniyeh District in the North Governorate of Lebanon or indeed in any location in Lebanon including Beirut. Should any threat or attack be made upon the applicant, there is little chance that the applicant would then receive ongoing protection or that his complaints would be properly investigated and the offenders brought to justice due to the severely compromised capacities of law enforcement agencies, both the ISF and the Municipal Police, across the country. The Tribunal finds that the applicant, who has a particular target on his head and is at a higher-than-normal risk of being the subject of a targeted crime, would be unable to access reliable and effective protection from state authorities to prevent or provide redress for serious harm he faces.

Conclusion

1. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has a well-founded fear of treatment amounting to serious harm from his ex-girlfriend’s family for the essential and significant reason of his religious identity, in particular, as a Sunni who had a forbidden premarital relationship with a Shia woman.

2. This real chance of harm applies in the applicant’s local area, where he also lacks effective protection from local police and other authorities due to the lack of capacity of police and due to local police and other local authorities being unwilling to intervene in what they consider to be a private family matter or outside of their authority. The Tribunal also finds that the risk faced by the applicant cannot be reduced to a level below a real chance by him relocating to another part of Lebanon. This is because the risk of his ex-girlfriend’s family being motivated to pursue him beyond his local area, cannot be discounted and the country information indicates that police in other locations throughout Lebanon, including Beirut, are also unable or unwilling to provide him with effective protection from the risk of a targeted attack by his ex-girlfriend’s family.

3. Considering the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s 5J of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.

4. Under s 36(3) of the Act, Australia is taken not to have protection obligations in respect of a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in, whether temporarily or permanently, and however that right arose or is expressed, any country apart from Australia, including countries of which the
   non-citizen is a national. Based on the available evidence, I find that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in a third country, and s 36(3) of the Act is therefore not applicable.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a).

Date of hearing:       11 December 2024                

Representative:        Ms Latifa Al-Haouli (MARN: 1175724)

ATTACHMENT – Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1)     Interpretation

…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

(a)   severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

(b)   pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

but does not include an act or omission:

(c)   that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(d)   arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

(a)   that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(b)   that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

(a)   for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

(b)   for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

(c)   for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

(d)   for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

(e)   for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:

(a)   a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

(b)   if the non-citizen has no country of nationality – a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

…

5H  Meaning of refugee

1. For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

   (a)   in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

   (b)   in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

   Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

…

5J   Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

1. For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

   (a)   the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

   (b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (c)   the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

   Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

2. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

   Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

3. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

   (a)   conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

   (b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

   (c)   without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

   (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

   (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

   (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

   (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

   (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

   (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

4. If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

   (a)   that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

   (b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

   (c)   the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

5. Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

   (a)   a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

   (b)   significant physical harassment of the person;

   (c)   significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

   (d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (e)   denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

6. In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K  Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

(a)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

(i)the first person has ever experienced; or

(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L   Membership of a particular social group other than family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

(a)   a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

(c)   any of the following apply:

(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures

1. For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

   (a)   protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

   (i)the relevant State; or

   (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

   (b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

2. A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

   (a)   the person can access the protection; and

   (b)   the protection is durable; and

   (c)   in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

…

1. Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

…

1. A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

   (a)   a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

   (aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (b)   a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

   (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

   (c)   a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

   (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

   (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

…

Al-Raida Issue 135-136-137 | Fall/Winter/Spring 2011–2012.