1923453 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming persecution on the grounds of actual and imputed political beliefs, and also relying on complementary protection provisions. The applicant is a Lebanese national whose father was a former member of the South Lebanese Army (SLA) and was subsequently detained and prosecuted by the Lebanese military for collaborating with Israel. The applicant alleged that Hezbollah had intensified its interest in him and his brother since 2013, seeking their recruitment for war efforts in Syria, and that this interest stemmed from their father's past association with the SLA and perceived Israeli sympathies. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant guidelines and country information.

The primary legal issues before the AAT were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. The court was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims, the relevance of his father's history with the SLA and subsequent persecution by Hezbollah, and whether these factors created a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Lebanon.

The AAT found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The decision notes that there was no suggestion that the applicant qualified for a visa as a member of the same family unit as a person who met the refugee or complementary protection criteria.

Consequently, the AAT affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.