1923453 (Refugee)

1923453 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 4398 (13 September 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Katrina Haddad Feghali (MARN: 1174363)
CASE NUMBER:  1923453
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon
MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan
DATE:13 September 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 13 September 2022 at 9:34am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – imputed political opinion – son of a former military member of the South Lebanese Army (SLA) – forcible recruitment by Hezbollah – accused of being an Israeli sympathizer and collaborator – credibility concerns – country information – unsubstantiated claims – inconsistent evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 20 August 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visa on 30 March 2017.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 August 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
Criteria for a protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, 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.
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.
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).
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.
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
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Claims and evidence
The applicant made the following statement in support of his claim:
I am claiming persecution on the grounds of Actual and Implied Political Beliefs. I also rely on the Complimentary Protection provisions for assessment of my claims.
I am the holder of a Lebanese passport. I was born on [date] at [Village 1], Lebanon. I am currently single and have never been married. My usual occupation is a [Occupation 1]. I was born a Shiite Moslem.
I arrived in Australia [in] March 2017, on a visitor's visa. I have previously travelled to Australia on visitors visa's on two previous occasions, the first being 2009 and the second being 2012.My parents and [number] siblings continue to reside in Lebanon.
I also have an elder sister who is an Australian citizen and is permanently domiciled in Australia. I have two uncles and an aunt who are also Australian citizens and are permanently domiciled in Australia.
My father [Mr A], was a former military member of the South Lebanese Army (SLA). He joined the SLA in 1986, under the command of General Antoine Lahad. His rank was a [specified]. After the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from South Lebanon in May 2000, my father was captured by Hezbollah.
He was initially detained in a Hezbollah prison and was subjected to gross human rights abuses. After a period of approximately one month, he was handed over to the Lebanese military where he was prosecuted and sentenced to a period of 3 years imprisonment on charges of collaborating with the enemy- Israel. I attach herewith evidence of my father's conviction.
Even after my father was released he continued to be monitored by Hezbollah and subjected to periodic interrogation sessions. During such episodes he would be beaten and accused of collaborating with the enemy. He remained a marked man by Hezbollah who continue to this very day to monitor his movements/activities as they remain suspicious of him.
As a young man I had personally witnessed numerous events where my father would be dragged out of the family home in the middle of the night by Hezbollah operatives and taken in for questioning. As my brother and I grew older, Hezbollah's interest in my father began to shift directly towards us.
Apart from monitoring, neither my brother nor I were directly interfered with by Hezbollah operatives prior to 2013. As Hezbollah's war efforts in Syrian intensified, Hezbollah's campaign of recruitment also escalated. The direct interest in my brother and I intensified since 2013.
Hezbollah requested that my brother and J join the war effort, being a test of where our allegiance lies. My brother and I were visited a number of times by Hezbollah recruiting officials encouraging us to join them.
My brother subsequently provided medical evidence confirming his back surgery which rendered him unfit for military duty. The attention of Hezbollah subsequently solely focused upon me. In October 2014, l was detained for a period of 2 days and subjected to interrogation and physical mistreatment at the hands of Hezbollah officials, on the basis that I resisted joining their military effort in Syria. I was also accused of following my father's footsteps and accused of being an Israeli sympathizer and collaborator. Following my release I sought medical attention. I attach herewith medical report.
Following that episode I continued to be monitored and subjected further interrogations sessions. I was again physically beaten in February 2016 by Hezbollah officials who accused me of collaborating with Israel. Following my interrogation and beatings I sought medical attention. I attach herewith a further medical report.
The degree of monitoring and frequent interrogation sessions severely restricted my freedom and liberties. Such restrictions on my freedom of movement also significantly adversely impacted on my capacity to engage in work. There were numerous periods during 2015 and 2016, where I was effectively prevented from working due to the restrictions that had been placed by Hezbollah on my freedom of movement. This was because on many occasions, I was ordered by Hezbollah not to leave the village, as I was under surveillance and investigation.
On the last occasion where l was subjected to interrogation by Hezbollah officials, I was given an ultimatum that l voluntarily join their war effort in Syria or continue to be subjected to monitoring and mistreatment. They also warned that my reluctance to join Hezbollah would convince them that I like my father am an Israeli collaborator.
lt is a well-established fact that the male son of an accused Shiite Israeli collaborator is expected to make amends for his father's mistakes and join Hezbollah as an act of loyalty and contrition.
My reluctance to join Hezbollah or have anything to do with them means that I am imputed to being an Israeli sympathizer and collaborator. My youngest brother is also declared medically unfit for military duty due to the fact that he has suffered from a severe brain hemorrhage and has mental illness.
l remain the only male candidate in the family whom Hezbollah has in the past excessively targeted and will in the foreseeable future continue to target. Hezbollah's recruitment drive will only intensify as their war effort in Syrian prolongs. I remain a discerning target for suspicion and abuse due to my father SLA military profile. The only means of allaying Hezbollah's fears about my political inclination is to join Hezbollah. I am however reluctant to do so as I remain morally and political opposed to Hezbollah and their unjust war effort in Syria.
I fear if I return to Lebanon I will continue to be subjected to suspicion, monitoring, interrogation, mistreatment and restriction placed on my personal liberties.
AAT Hearing
The applicant was asked if there were any additional pieces of correspondence not already available to the Tribunal and he said there wasn’t. Everything he had provided to the Tribunal was known and was true and accurate. He claimed that he had been detained and beaten twice. If he returned to Lebanon he would be targeted by Hizbullah because his father had been in the South Lebanese Army (SLA) and he had refused to join them and carry weapons. They believed he was defying them. This was his sole claim.
He claimed that in 2000 the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon and his life changed. Hizbullah took his father. His father had joined the SLA in 1986 and was a [rank]. He was stationed in [Village 1] after his initial training. He was in the security/intelligence. Asked how he knew his father performed this role, he said that his father told them everything. Asked what his role actually involved, it was put to him that he was on the telephone and wrote reports.
He was asked what he meant by this as it sounded quite vague. He said his father received reports from different elements about what happened in the different areas. For example if there was fighting they would be the first point of contact and then advise them what to do. The member said that from his description this sounded like an operations clerk role, not intelligence. The applicant said security was very important. He was asked if he had ever been in the military and he said that he hadn’t.
It was put to him that intelligence was a particular role and what he described didn’t appear to be intelligence, but that he worked in a SLA HQ in [Village 1] and he was [performing specified task]. The applicant might call it security/intelligence but his role appeared to be that of an operations clerk. He said that people in the village all called it [security]. It was put to him that regardless, it sounded that his role was quite low-level from what he described.
His father was detained after the Israelis left and questioned. It was put to him that some SLA went to Israel and the remainder were detained and checked for their past before being handed on to the Lebanese military. He claimed that some went directly to the state of Lebanon and others went to Hizbullah first. His father was taken by Hizbullah for two months and then handed to the Lebanese government and was tried.
He was sentenced to three years’ jail and three years not being allowed to return to his home area. The applicant was young and didn’t know what was happening. He went to [a school] in [Town 1] learning to be a [Occupation 2] and during this time he began to feel that he was different because of his father. This was hard for him to handle.
He began to understand that his father was wrong and he began to feel different to the others of his age. His older brother and he then began to farm [specified produce]. Then after his course his father was released in 2003 (the applicant was 18). The first month was difficult. While the family slept, people from Hizbullah came in and took their father. They brought him back the same night and had hit him.
This was repeated quite often. Asked how often, he said every two-three months. From 2003- 2006 it was every two-three months. After the war in 2006, Hizbullah changed the way they did things and weren’t as obvious as before. His father used to go to [City 1] every six months after 2006 to be questioned by the government. Asked what Hizbullah did after 2006, he claimed that the questioning wasn’t as frequent but they came to the house a few times. This continued until the present. In 2016 there were elections and Hizbullah came to their house and said their family would have to vote for them.
Asked if they were still coming to see his father in 2022, he said they did but irregularly, only if they wanted something. Such as elections, or a mayor or village elder. Asked when they stopped questioning him, he said it was around eight or ten years ago.
He was asked why they would still question him until 2012 or 2014 and yet he was a [rank] after 14 years, so he was not senior and stayed in the HQ taking down reports. He didn’t appear to be important so the amount of interest they had in him seemed extraordinary. He said this was correct and it changed after 2006 – they were after the names of people working with Israel. He was asked what a SLA [rank] in [Village 1] know. Hizbullah had the SLA well penetrated and had access to lots of information so their interest in the applicant’s father made little sense.
He said at first it was getting information from them but then perhaps they were just trying to humiliate him. Asked how often he had to go to [City 1], he said it was every six months until around 2016. Asked what their interest in him would be given his role in the SLA, he claimed that they would tell him to e at [City 1] at 0900 and then he waited until 4 or 5 pm and they would tell him to go. Many times they never questioned him. Asked what questions they asked him, he said they would ask him about his family and information they already had. It was put to him that this made little sense, he claimed that it was perhaps to humiliate them.
Asked if this happened to all the ex-SLA members and their families, he said that he didn’t know about Hizbullah’s actions regarding other people. It was put to him that there was no country information available to the Tribunal that indicated Hizbullah or the Lebanese government paid this type of attention to lower-ranked ex-SLA members and he was asked why there was such interest in his father. The Tribunal was of the belief that if there was any supporting evidence regarding ex-SLA members then the applicant or his adviser would have provided it prior to the hearing.
There are reports into the SLA post-2000 and it is unusual that his account of the degree of interest in his father didn’t appear to be supported by information. He was told he would be given time post-hearing to provide some supporting information.
Asked what fear the applicant felt himself, he claimed that he would be perceived as having defied Hizbullah and he had fled the country and so there was now a threat to him. He felt this threat from 2012 once it became direct on him. He said that prior to 2012 people pretended to be his friend and asked him to join Hizbullah. After 2012 they were explicit they said he would not be bothered any more and his family would be looked after. They asked him questions and befriended him.
When the war in Syria occurred their requests to carry a weapon became more serious. He was hit badly in 2014. Hizbullah came after him and took him in a car to their place for two days – he was bashed badly. Asked the circumstances that made them try force in 2014 rather than 2012, he claimed that in 2014 the people who tried to force him he didn’t know. The others had been people he knew from his village.
He was asked why he was singled out by Hizbullah to join them. He said that there were many other whose fathers were in the SLA who were being pressured to join Hizbullah. They wanted numbers to go fight in Syria. It was put to him that country information indicated that Hizbullah didn’t force people to join their military wing, nor was the Tribunal aware that Hizbullah tried to force family members of ex-SLA to join them. The applicant had not provided any country information that would support these claims.
He claimed that it may not be known outside the area. It was put to him that the Hizbullah recruitment methodology wasn’t unknown and there had been articles written about it. He said Hizbullah was very clever and they wouldn’t have come for him if his father hadn’t been in the SLA. Hizbullah doesn’t wait for people to come to them – they block everybody’s other options until they want to join the,. They oppose the creation of job opportunities so people are reliant on them for their sustenance.
It was put to him that he was fully employed. He claimed that he worked in more than one job – they would put pressure on him to force him to quit jobs. Asked how often he was forced to quit work. He said the pressure wasn’t direct but the pressure built up to make him stop work. Asked how many jobs he worked in, he said he worked for his uncle for 10 years. Asked what job he was forced out of, he claimed that he provided the paper that he worked for his uncle for 10 years only in order to get a visa. In reality he only worked in summer for one or two months when it was busy.
It was put to him that he had given false information to get the visa. He said that over the 10 years he worked for a month or two each year. Asked if he got holidays because of this work, he said that the work was only a couple of months a year and started in 2006. He was asked then what he meant when he said that Hizbullah stopped him from working, he claimed that Hizbullah didn’t directly force him to stop work, they would force his employer.
He was asked how they stopped his uncle from employing him given he said that he only worked in the busy months. He claimed that when he began with his uncle in 2006 he worked for long periods but then later it was only for a month or two and then he knew that Hizbullah was strangling his work. It was put to him that there was only work for a month of two over the busy time in summer. He said he worked full time for the first two years when there was a lot of building going on.

He only began working in summer in 2012 onwards. It was put to him that he claimed there were periods in 2015/16 where he was prevented from working due to the pressure from Hizbullah. He said that in these years he worked for [Town 2] with UNIFIL. It was put to him that he had not mentioned this on his protection visa application – he said that he had not been asked specifically. It was put to him that he had been asked for his jobs on his protection visa application and he had not mentioned it. He said a friend employed him for two months also but let him go. He said he may have forgotten to put down all his jobs. It was put to him that he had said he knew everything in his application and it was true and correct. He said he had forgotten. He said he worked for UNIFIL for five months in 2015.
It was put to him that he had claimed that he was prevented from working in 2015 because of the limits Hizbullah placed on his freedom of movement. Yet he was working for UNIFIL in 2015 for five months. The claims were inconsistent. He claimed that when he said restricting his movements, they weren’t preventing him by standing at his door, he would start work for a month or two then he couldn’t work any more as they wanted to force him to join them – they promised him USD 600/ month.
It was put to him that he claimed Hizbullah beat him in 2014 and 2016, yet Hizbullah was an ideological organisation that wanted to attract recruits who shared their view of the world, rather than force people to join them. He claimed that during the Syrian war it didn’t matter, they wanted numbers. It was put to him that Hizbullah still wanted willing recruits who would fight for them. Given this, it was strange they would kidnap and detain him and beat him so badly he required medical treatment. This seemed strange way to recruit someone – in fact it would likely have the opposite effect.
He claimed that the beating was perhaps revenge against him, and the idea that Hizbullah volunteers who died in Syria were ideological was wrong – half the people there hated Hizbullah. He was asked how many Hizbullah fighters in Syria had been beaten before joining, he said he didn’t know.
He was asked why the medical reports he provided from South Lebanon were hand-written in English, he claimed that they were for his brother – he had been asked to provide them hence got them in English. It was put to him that it was difficult to give a hand-written note much weight. There was no computer printout of a medical insurance claim, or contemporaneous photos of the injuries could have made the evidence stronger. He claimed that he provided what he was asked for. The fear instilled in him meant he could not provide reports of this type.
It was put to him that he could provide information about Hizbullah forcibly recruiting members and targeted family members of ex-SLA members. He had written that it was a ‘well established fact’ that the male son of an accused Shi’a Israeli collaborator was expected to join Hizbullah. There should be country information to support this ‘well established fact’. He said the evidence was that three quarters of the children of ex-SLA members were now in Hizbullah. He was told that he could provide the evidence base for this claim otherwise the Tribunal may think he made it up. He must have some way of accessing such information otherwise he had just made the claim up. He was advised unless he knew something was a fact then he should not present it as a fact, as the Tribunal needed to establish his credibility.
He claimed that he had strong evidence – two young people from his village joined Hizbullah died in the war – he asked if this was strong evidence. It was put to him that two people from his village dying did not equate to three-quarters of all children of ex-SLA members joined Hizbullah. He would be given time post-hearing to provide this.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2017 on a visitor’s visa and then applied for protection on 30 March 2017. He is a [age] year-old Lebanese male who has become married since arriving in Australia. He claimed that if he returned to Lebanon he would be targeted by Hizbullah because he had refused to join them.
In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth. Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.
Overall, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding his claims to lack credibility. For reasons set out below I did not find the applicant to be a reliable, credible or truthful witness.
Interest from Hizbullah
I accept that the applicant’s father was a [rank] in the SLA who operated out of an SLA base in [Village 1]. I also accept that the applicant’s father was detained for a period by Hizbullah following the withdrawal of Israeli forces from south Lebanon in June 2000 and then sentenced to three years prison by the Lebanese government. Country information indicates that most SLA members without serious charges against them were sentenced to terms of between one and three years.[1]
[1] Refworld | Lebanon and Israel: Treatment of Lebanese who cooperated with Israel during its occupation of Lebanon, including those who stayed in Lebanon after the withdrawal of Israeli troops and those who sought refuge in Israel and obtained Israeli citizenship (2000-2012), accessed 1 September 2022.
I do not accept that he was in the SLA intelligence. The member served in the Australian regular army for more than 25 years that included four operational tours, including in South Lebanon in the mid-1990s as a UN military observer. I regularly visited SLA positions during this time. Based on my experience and training, from what the applicant described, his father’s role appeared to be as an operations clerk/watchkeeper in a local HQ. The fact that he remained in Lebanon rather than leaving for Israel after the Israeli withdrawal, as well as the fact that he only received one of the average sentence lengths (some were sentenced for up to 15 years[2]) also supports the view that he was not in SLA intelligence.
[2] Refworld | Lebanon: The South Lebanese Army (SLA) military structure and names of high ranking officers; whether the length of service in the South Lebanese Army (SLA) determines the sentences handed down by Lebanese Military Court (1997-2000), accessed 8 September 2022.
I do not accept that the applicant’s father was monitored or questioned by Hizbullah or made to attend sessions with the government at [City 1] for years after his release. The Tribunal is not aware of any country information that indicates ex-SLA members were subject to such a rigorous regime of interrogation following their release from prison, nor did the applicant provide any despite being given the opportunity post-hearing to do so.
The nature of the applicant’s father’s service as described by the applicant appeared to be a static headquarters operations clerk function, and did not appear to be intelligence-related. The fact that the father received a prison sentence within the average sentence range would support this conclusion.
I also do not accept that the applicant was subject to any pressure to join Hizbullah because he was the son of an ex-SLA member or for any other reason, that he was detained and beaten by them, or that pressure was exerted on him through denying him freedom of movement or employment opportunities. There are several reasons for this finding:
a.Country information indicates that Hizbullah does not compel people to join the group and that they seek only those ideologically committed to their cause.[3] I do not accept that Hizbullah didn’t worry about this during the Syrian civil war because they needed more people. Country information[4] indicates that recruitment efforts were increased, but using inducements such as training and money. Detaining and beating up a potential recruit runs counter to the approach of incentivising ideologically aligned recruits that country information outlines. I have taken into account what he claims was the relevant medical reports. They are copies handwritten notes on letterhead paper that could have been produced on any home computer. Although handwritten 16 months apart, their wording is identical ‘(He) attended to the hospital and was in a state of severe pain all over his body. After his examination he was found to be suffering from beatings and bruises in various parts of his body. He was given the necessary treatment and went home.’ The lack of specificity in the doctor’s reports and the identical wording of reports by a person presenting to the hospital 16 months apart means I give the letters little weight;
b.The applicant was given an opportunity to provide country information in support of his claim but all that was provided was a June 2000 Human Rights Watch report that recounted the kidnapping of 20 men from [location] by people claiming to be from Hizbullah. The Tribunal has already accepted that Hizbullah detained ex-SLA members in the immediate wake of the Israeli withdrawal in June 2000 and this information supports that. There is nothing in the more than two-decade old report that addresses the Tribunal’s concerns that Hizbullah neither forcibly recruits individuals, nor targets the hildren of ex-SLA members for recruitment, and hence I give the report no weight.
c.The applicant also provided three letters of support from individuals in Australia who claimed to have first or second-hand knowledge of what occurred to the applicant. I lend them little weight. One person claimed to be from the same village as the applicant and to have accompanied him to hospital after he was beaten. However the witness claims that the applicant was beaten and tortured numerous times for not joining Hizbullah, whereas the applicant claimed that he was only beaten on two occasions, two years apart. The other two letters were from people resident in Australia. One said that he left Lebanon in 2007 to study dentistry overseas, returned to Lebanon and migrated to Australia. The letter does not indicate when he was in Lebanon, or where, and on what basis he is able to corroborate the applicant’s claims (whether it was first, second- or third-hand knowledge). The third letter was from someone who was in Australia (visa/residency basis not stated) who claimed to corroborate the applicant’s claim (the level of his knowledge was not stated) and who also claimed to have a brother forcibly recruited to Hizbullah who was killed in Syria. No evidence in support of this claim such as martyrdom notices, common for Hizbullah fighters killed in Syria[5], was provided that could have given the Tribunal some confidence in the truthfulness of the author’s claim.
d.The applicant also made unsubstantiated claims or provided inconsistent evidence. This includes:
i.Claims that it was a ‘well established fact’ that the male son of an accused Israeli collaborator was expected to join Hizbullah, and that three-quarters of all children of ex-SLA members were now in Hizbullah. No country information was provided in support of these claims either prior to, or after the hearing. There is no evidence available to the Tribunal that would support either claim;
ii.He claimed that there were numerous periods during 2015 and 2016 that he was effectively prevented from working due to restrictions placed on his freedom of movement by Hizbullah, including being ordered not to leave the village on many occasions. At hearing however, he claimed that he worked for UNIFIL for five months in 2015, something he had not mentioned in his protection visa application and which was inconsistent with the degree of restrictions allegedly placed on him by Hizbullah;
iii.He also claimed that Hizbullah put pressure on him to quit jobs. However he also claimed in his protection visa application to have worked for his uncle from July 2006 until he left Lebanon in 2017. At hearing he then claimed that he only worked for two months each year during the busy summer period, and that he provided a letter saying he was fully employed simply to get the visa to Australia. He subsequently claimed without evidence that when the work was for only a couple of months he knew this was the result of Hizbullah pressure. He also claimed that he worked full-time for two years and then part-time, and also that he only began working in summer from 2012 onwards.
iv.Not only does this show a willingness to provide false documentation to gain a favourable migration outcome, he has also been inconsistent in describing his work regime with his uncle (F/T for 10 years, then only two months a year, then F/T for the first two years and then P/T, and only P/T from 2012 onwards) and the reason for his P/T work – at one time saying it was over the busy summer period, the other time that he knew Hizbullah had intervened to limit his work. He also claimed that he worked for UNIFIL in 2015 and also a friend for a while as an [Occupation 3], yet neither job is shown on his protection visa application nor mentioned in his statement.
Other Issues
[3] ‘Lebanon: Recruitment practices of Hezbollah’, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 4 November 2013.
[4] Refworld Report LBN106189 dated 6 November 2018
[5] Hizballah, the Jihad in Syria, and Commemorations in Lebanon :: Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, accessed 8 September 2022.
I also do accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm because of his real or imputed political beliefs. He did not particularise these claims at hearing however he did note in his statement that he was morally and politically opposed to Hizbullah, and from the issues discussed during the hearing the Tribunal has taken it to mean that he would be considered to be opposed to Hizbullah and/or supportive of Israel. I have already indicated that I do not accept the applicant is of interest to Hizbullah, that they tried to forcibly recruit him or detained or assaulted him.
He presented no evidence of any political activity or of any social media presence supportive of Israel or critical of Hizbullah. There is also no country information provided nor known to the Tribunal that indicates the children of ex-SLA members are imputed with such political opinion. Country information indicates that Hizbullah only revert to direct threats or violence when they feel that their power is genuinely threatened and, given the applicant’s actions do not in any way threaten Hizbullah’s political power I do not accept that they would monitor, interrogate, mistreat or place restrictions on him, let alone seriously harm him.[6]
[6] DFAT Country Information report – Lebanon, 19 March 2019, p 24.
I also do not accept that he would be imputed with being an Israeli sympathiser or collaborator for the reasons listed at paragraphs 65/66 above, or that he be a target for suspicion and abuse due to his father’s SLA military profile. I have previously raised my concerns regarding the lack of country information to support the claim that the children of ex-SLA members are targeted by Hizbullah, and the applicant failed to provide any evidence to support this claim.
Having considered the applicant’s evidence both individually and cumulatively, for the reasons set out above the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any s. 5J(1)(b) reason either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary Protection
Because I do not accept that the applicant was, is or would be of any interest to Hizbullah, or has been targeted for beatings by them, refused to join them or that they would target him because he is the son of an ex-SLA member, I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of significant harm on the basis of these claims as outlined in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
Therefore, I do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Rodger Shanahan
Member

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.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)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.
…

[2022] AATA 4398

13 September 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction