1928641 (Refugee)

[2025] ARTA 1122

1928641 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1122 (27 MARCH 2025)

DECISION AND  

REASONS FOR DECISION

Representative:  Ms Emma Hungerford Espino (MARN: 1808715)

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Numbers:  1928636, 1928629, 1928641

Tribunal:General Member J Le Vay

Date:27 March 2025

Place:Sydney

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 applicants meet the following criteria:

·s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 27 March 2025 at 12:53pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – religion – Jehovah’s Witnesses – particular social group – single women – physical assault – disinheritance – family violence – fear of killing – employment – mental health issues – conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon – association of Jehovah’s Witnesses with Zionism – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES

Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
MMM v MIMA (1998) 90 FCR 324

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. These are applications for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas 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 applicants, who are citizens of Lebanon, applied separately for protection visas on 27 January 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visas in separate decisions dated 9 October 2019 on the basis that the applicants are not persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. 

4. The applicants claim to be members of the same family unit: [Applicant 2] and [Applicant 3] being the adult children of [Applicant 1].

5. The applicants agreed to a combined hearing and appeared before the Tribunal on 4 September 2024 and 9 September 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. [Applicant 2] and [Applicant 3] preferred to give their evidence in English with the interpreter present in case needed.

6. The applicants were represented by the same representative in relation to the review.

   Criteria for protection visa

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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 (Department), 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.

    Background

13. In their protection visa application forms, the applicants provided the following information:

    [Applicant 1]

    ·     She was born in [specified year] in [Village 1], Lebanon.

    ·     She has [other specified children] in Beirut, Lebanon.

    ·     Her son and other daughter – the other applicants – are in Australia.

    ·     She is separated. Her husband is in [Village 2], Lebanon.

    ·     Her [specified siblings] and her parents are in Lebanon. She also has a brother in [Country 1].

    ·     She attended school [between specified years].

    ·     She married in [year] following which she moved to [Village 2].

    ·     She worked as a self-employed [occupation 1] from 1990.

    ·     She separated from her husband in 1992.

    ·     In 1999 she was forced out of the marital home and returned to [Village 1].

    ·     She visited [Country 2] in April 2005 and again in June 2005 to attend the weddings of two [family members].

    ·     In 2008 she moved to [Town 1] where she remained until travelling to Australia.

    [Applicant 2]

    ·     He was born in [year] in [Town 2], Lebanon.

    ·     His mother and sister – the other applicants – are in Australia.

    ·     His father and his other [siblings] are in Lebanon.

    ·     He attended school [between specified years].

    ·     He trained in [subject 1] [between specified years].

    ·     He worked as [occupations 2 and 3] from [year] to 2016. From 2016 he worked as [occupation 2] and [a slightly different role] until leaving Lebanon.

    ·     He visited [Country 3] in September 2016 for work.

    ·     He lived in [Village 2] until 1999 when he moved to [Village 1]. In 2008 he moved to [Town 1] where he remained until travelling to Australia.

    [Applicant 3]

    ·     She was born in in [year] in [Town 2], Lebanon.

    ·     Her mother and brother – the other applicants – are in Australia.

    ·     Her father and her [other siblings] are in Lebanon.

    ·     She has never married.

    ·     She attended school [between specified years].

    ·     She studied for a [subject 2] degree from [between specified years].

    ·     She worked as [an occupation 4] from [year] to 2015 and then as an [an occupation 5] until leaving Lebanon.  

    ·     She visited [Country 4] and [Country 5] in April 2015 and [Country 3] in September 2015.

    ·     She lived in [Village 2] until 1999 when she moved to [Village 1]. In 2008 she moved to [Town 1] where she remained until travelling to Australia.

14. The applicants departed Lebanon together [in] January 2017 and arrived in Australia, entering on their Lebanese passports on visit visas issued [in] 2016.

    Evidence before the Department

    Protection visa applications

15. The applicants’ written claims for protection are set out in separate statutory declarations.  They each claim to be a Jehovah’s Witness. Their protection claims are summarised as follows:

    [Applicant 1]

    ·     She was born into the Orthodox Christian faith.

    ·     She began to study the Jehovah’s Witness faith in 1987 and was baptised [in] October 1992. She was a member of the [Congregation 1] Jehovah’s Witness congregation.

    ·     Her husband is a Maronite who strongly opposes her faith. He became physically violent after she was baptised, and he and his brother threatened to shoot her if she did not renounce her faith.

    ·     Her husband forced her to leave the marital home in 1999. He and his family placed a snake in the house, cut off the water and electricity supply, and threw rocks at the door to scare her into submission.

    ·     Her husband also denied her a share of the property and denied inheritance to their children.

    ·     Her husband continues to threaten her and their children.

    ·     She is more vulnerable as a woman than a male member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially to physical and sexual violence whilst preaching. She and her daughter have been threatened before when preaching.

    ·     She cannot rely on the Lebanese authorities for protection, especially because the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion is not recognised in Lebanon and because Jehovah’s Witnesses are perceived as Zionists and troublemakers. Only [Applicant 2] could protect her.

    ·     Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to restrict or desist from undertaking core tenets of their faith, including preaching. They have to hold meetings at secret locations.

    ·     As an unrecognised religion Jehovah’s Witnesses are denied civil rights such as marriage and burial.

    [Applicant 3]

    ·     She was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness [in] February 2003. She was a member of the [Congregation 1] Jehovah’s Witness congregation.

    ·     Her [siblings] in Lebanon are also Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    ·     As a Jehovah Witness she was beaten by a teacher for refusing to participate in religious classes or stand up for the raising of the flag in assembly. She was forced out of school. At university she was also ostracised and mentally and verbally abused because she refused to participate in campus political processes.

    ·     She was verbally and mentally abused by work colleagues, and resigned as a result, because of her faith.

    ·     Jehovah Witnesses’ preaching activities are perceived as troublemaking, and they are accused of supporting international Zionism. She has been threatened with physical and sexual violence when preaching. As a woman she is more vulnerable.

    ·     The Jehovah’s Witnesses religion is not recognised in Lebanon. As a result, Jehovah’s Witnesses are unable to turn to the authorities for protection. They are forced to restrict or desist from undertaking core tenets of their faith, including preaching, e.g. in Muslim areas. They must hold meetings at secret locations. Preaching cannot be limited only to those who may tolerate it. To restrict their preaching in this way means that they are unable to adhere to their faith.

    ·     Jehovah’s Witness are denied civil rights such as marriage and burial rights.

    ·     Her father is not a Jehovah’s Witness. He threatened her with physical violence and threatened to deny her inheritance. She was forced to leave her home by her father.

    ·     Only [Applicant 2] can protect her.

    [Applicant 2]

    ·     He was born into the Maronite faith. He was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness [in] November 2000. He was a member of the [Congregation 1] Jehovah’s Witness congregation.

    ·     His [siblings] in Lebanon are also Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    ·     His father is a staunch Maronite and opposed his conversion. His father and uncles threatened him with physical violence and threatened to deny his inheritance unless he renounced his faith. He last had contact with his father two years before the protection visa application.

    ·     He was subject to discrimination by work colleagues and lost his job because of complaints against him. His difficulty in retaining employment threatens his capacity to subsist.

    ·     Jehovah Witnesses’ preaching activities are perceived as troublemaking, and they are accused of supporting international Zionism. He has been threatened with physical harm many times when preaching.

    ·     The Jehovah’s Witnesses religion is not recognised in Lebanon. As a result, Jehovah’s Witnesses are unable to turn to the authorities for protection. They are forced to restrict or desist from undertaking core tenets of their faith, including preaching, e.g. in Muslim areas. They must hold meetings at secret locations. Preaching cannot be limited only to those who may tolerate it. To restrict their preaching in this way means that they are unable to adhere to their faith.

    ·     Jehovah’s Witness are denied basic civil rights.

    ·     He returned to Lebanon from [Country 3] to protect his mother and [Applicant 3] from his father and uncles. The police do not intervene in domestic matters.

16. The applicants each claim to have travelled to [Country 3] for a Jehovah’s Witness congress in [specified year], travelling back to Lebanon via [Country 6].

17. The applicants have each provided copies of their Lebanese passports. [Applicant 1’s] passport was issued [in] 2016. She also provided a copy of her cancelled Lebanese passport issued [in] 2005. [Applicant 2] and [Applicant 3’s] passports were issued [in] 2013. The passports contain immigration stamps evidencing their travel history. The passports confirm their citizenship, names, and dates and places of birth.

18. They also provided the following documents:

    ·     Advanced Health Care Directives for each of the applicants dated [in] January 2017 directing that as Jehovah’s Witnesses they should be given no blood transfusions.

    ·     Letter dated [in] December 2016 from the [Congregation 1] Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses confirming that [Applicant 1] was baptised [in] October 1992, [Applicant 2] [in] November 2000, and [Applicant 3] [in] February 2003 as members of the church.

    ·     Letters from [Congregation 2] Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses dated [in] October 2017 in relation to each of the applicants, stating that they have been active members of the church since 1992, 2000, and 2003 and that they are associated with the [Congregation 2].

    ·     Letter from Watch Tower in [a named country] dated [in] February 2017 in relation to all three applicants certifying that they are baptised members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and are engaged in public bible educational ministry.

19. The applicants each received assistance from the same migration agent in completing the protection visa applications.

20. The applicants were interviewed together by the delegate on 26 July 2019. The Tribunal has listened to a recording of the interview. Following the interview, the applicants provided the following further information to the delegate:

    ·     Marriage certificate showing [Applicant 2’s] marriage to [his wife] (born in Australia) [in] September 2019 at Kingdom Hall, [location], NSW, according to the rites of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    ·     Birth certificate of [name], born on [date] to [Applicant 2] and his wife.

    ·     Family census and translation identifying [Applicant 1] and her husband, and their [children] ([Applicant 2] is named [a name variant]). All are identified as Maronites except [Applicant 1] who is identified as ‘Orthodox’.

    ·     [Applicant 1’s] marriage certificate (untranslated)

    ·     Lebanese identity cards for all three applicants (untranslated)

    ·     Country information regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon.

    Delegate’s decisions

21. The applicants were refused in separate decisions each dated 9 October 2019.

22. The delegate was satisfied as to the applicants’ identities. The Tribunal is similarly satisfied and finds that the country of reference is Lebanon.

23. The delegate records that the applicants raised the following additional claims in the interview:

    ·     [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] have not seen their husband/father since they were forced to leave the family home in [Village 2] in 1999 and have never returned to it.

    ·     [Applicant 2] had some contact with his father and uncles over recent years. They encouraged him to return to the Maronite faith in order to maintain his inheritance. He was threatened with physical violence when he declined to leave the Jehovah’s Witness faith.

    ·     [Applicant 1’s] other [children] and [their spouses] are Jehovah’s Witnesses and continue to reside in Lebanon.

    ·     On one occasion a member of the public set their dog on [Applicant 3], but she escaped.

    ·     [Applicant 2] was hit once when proselytising.

    ·     [Applicant 2] attended a bible study that was interrupted by 12 police officers. The police located Watch Tower magazines and warned him not to preach in that particular area under threat of arrest.

    ·     They continue to be registered as Orthodox Christians/Maronites.

24. The delegate accepted that:

    ·     [Applicant 1] was born into the Orthodox Christian faith, and the other applicants were born into the Maronite Christian faith. They converted to the Jehovah’s Witness faith and are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were members of the [Congregation 1] Jehovah’s Witness congregation. [Applicant 1’s] [children] in Lebanon are also Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    ·     As a Jehovah’s Witness [Applicant 3] was denied some basic human rights. She was ousted from school and beaten by a teacher for refusing to participate in religious class or stand for the flag. She was also ostracized, and mentally and verbally abused, at university because she refused to take part in campus political processes. She was subjected to verbal and mental abuse from work colleagues in the workplace on account of her faith, leading to her resignation from one job.

    ·     As a Jehovah’s Witness [Applicant 2] was denied some basic human rights. He lost his job after complaints to management from other employees.

    ·     They have been subjected to threats of physical and sexual violence when proselytising in Lebanon. On one occasion a person set a dog on [Applicant 3], and once [Applicant 2] was hit.

    ·     They practised their faith in a restricted manner by meeting in secret locations and avoiding preaching in Muslims areas due to the lack of state protection. [Applicant 2] attended a bible study that was interrupted by 12 police officers, who located Watch Tower magazines and warned him not to preach in that particular area under threat of arrest.

    ·     [Applicant 1] was subjected to domestic violence and other forms of intimidation from her husband – a Maronite – and in-laws because of her Jehovah’s Witness faith. Her conversion led to her separation in 1992. She and her children were forced to leave their home in 1999. [Applicant 1’s] husband refused to pay any settlement money and she was unable to enforce her settlement rights.  [Applicant 1’s] husband threatened to deny them their inheritance. They - [Applicant 2] in particular - were harassed and threatened with physical violence and/or being killed by [Applicant 1’s] husband and in-laws.

    ·     [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] relied on [Applicant 2] to protect them from threats emanating from relatives and third parties.

1. The delegate considered country information which indicated that while there are restrictions on Jehovah’s Witnesses, members of this faith are generally able to conduct worship and follow their beliefs in Lebanon without being subjected to serious harm. The delegate assessed that they would be able to continue to worship with their congregation in Lebanon in the same low-key manner that they adopted previously. They were not previously physically or sexually assaulted while preaching.

2. The delegate also assessed that the limitations on proselytising fall short of serious harm since they were still able to perform the core tenet of their faith – proselytising over a period of years – without being seriously harmed. There were also able to regularly attend meetings, notwithstanding that on one occasion [Applicant 2’s] bible study meeting was once interrupted.

3. The delegate also found that in light of country information about women in Lebanon [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] would not suffer serious harm as female Jehovah’s Witnesses or solely as women.

4. There is not a real chance of [Applicant 3] being harmed at educational establishments or in the workplace because the previous instances of harm were specific to their settings.

5. [Applicant 2’s] loss of his job was specific to the particular workplace, and he would be able to find work on return to Lebanon.

6. The delegate found that discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses falls short of serious harm.

7. The delegate was also not satisfied that the applicants will suffer serious harm at the hands of [Applicant 1’s] ex-husband and/or in-laws since [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] have had no contact with them since 1999 and the applicants were not seriously harmed by them over that period.

8. As a result, the delegate found that the applicants are not refugees or owed complementary protection.

   Evidence before the Tribunal

   Application for review

9. On 10 October 2019, the applicants lodged separate applications for review of the delegate’s decisions with the AAT. They provided copies of the delegate’s decisions.

10. Prior to the hearing the applicants provided the following further documentation (in a bundle numbering 408 pages):

    ·     Written submissions from the representative numbering 40 pages.

    ·     Further recently dated statements from each applicant.

    ·     More recently dated ‘No blood’ Advanced Health Care Directives for each applicant

    ·     Letters in relation to each of the applicants dated 28 July 2024 from [Congregation 2] of Jehovah’s Witnesses confirming their continued active attendance and participation in meetings.

    ·     Emails to each of the applicants from the [Country 3] Branch Office of Jehovah’s Witnesses inviting them to [their] Convention, along with other information regarding their attendance.

    ·     Recently dated separate letters from [three names] – friends from the [Congregation 2] of Jehovah’s Witnesses – in relation to all three applicants stating they are actively involved in Jehovah’s Witnesses activities including public ministry.

    ·     Literature relating to the [identified] Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including a program of highlights on [specified dates] at [named] Assembly Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, two photographs of the applicants at what appears to be a convention, and an invitation to [Applicant 2] to serve as a volunteer.

    ·     Screenshots of Instagram posts of photographs of the applicants and others purporting to show their attendance at the 2024 convention.

    ·     Photographs of the applicants attending the 2023 Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the 2019 Convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the [Congregation 2] Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    ·     Photographs of the applicants’ door-to-door witnessing and campaign to assist rural preaching.

    ·     Other evidence of the applicants’ attendance at [Congregation 2] Kingdom Hall.

    ·     A schedule for [Applicant 2] to deliver a talk on [date] at [Congregation 2] Kingdom Hall and to act as a field service conductor [in] September 2024.

    ·     GP mental health care plan patient assessment and referral to a psychologist dated 22 August 2024 indicating that [Applicant 1] presents with anxiety /depression and that she receives no regular medication.  

    ·     Report dated 1 September 2024 from a counsellor at [Heallth Service 1]. The counsellor states that she has been treating [Applicant 1] for severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety resulting from the trauma and abuse she suffered for years due to her religious beliefs. She reports that [Applicant 1] was beaten by her husband and his family, verbally and emotionally abused, confined to the home, ostracised by the community, threatened with death by a religious political group, forced to move from place to place to evade her husband’s family after she left his home, and continued to receive threats from them after her arrival in Australia. She has social anxiety and panic attacks. She requires regular therapy.

11. In their further statements the applicants repeat their claims and provide the following further information/detail, in summary:

    [Applicant 1]

    ·     Her husband and his family considered that her conversion to the Jehovah’s Witness faith disgraced the family and the local community.

    ·     The priest at the local Maronite church publicly condemned her and the whole community turned against her.

    ·     Her brother-in-law threatened her with a pistol and harassed her.

    ·     She is unable to obtain a divorce in the Maronite church.

    ·     She and her children were able to remain in the marital home after her separation – when her husband left the home. During this time her brother-in-law insulted and threatened her.

    ·     In 1999 she and her children were forced to leave the home when her husband’s family planted a snake in the house, threw rocks at the house, and loosened the nuts on the wheels of her car. They then moved from place to place.

    ·     She was able to practice her faith freely at the Jehovah’s Witness convention in [Country 3] in 2014.

    ·     Whilst door-to-door preaching one person unleashed their dog on her around 2015/2016; she was yelled at, pushed, and had dirty water thrown at her; she heard the sound of a gun being loaded.

    ·     She describes her religious practice in Australia including attending meetings and assemblies and participating in public witnessing.

    ·     She has depression and anxiety, and sleeps poorly.  She has panic attacks. She feels dizzy when hearing news about Lebanon.

    [Applicant 3]

    ·     Her father abused her mother and withdrew financial support because of her faith.

    ·     Her father left home returning occasionally.

    ·     A nun at school slapped her twice. Her mother subsequently moved her to a public school. When she was 12 years old she was wrapped on her hand with a ruler by the principal after she protested that she was not interested in catechisms.

    ·     Her mother moved out, leaving the village ([Village 2]), taking her children with her, because of ongoing mistreatment. They moved from place to place in order to evade her father. She changed school. At the new school the principal ejected her from the grounds because she refused to participate in the school’s religious rituals. 

    ·     She was cautious when preaching in Lebanon, ensuring that a person was interested before giving them literature.

    ·     She attended meetings in small Jehovah’s Witness groups and changed venue, and sometimes stopped attending, because she was fearful.

    ·     When door-to-door preaching (in [named locations]) she was pushed and threatened; had dirty water thrown at her once with her mother; a dog was unleashed on her in 2009; and she was followed by a car and the driver insisted she get in.

    ·     In 2015, after working at the same place for several years with ‘nice’ people and enjoying promotion, new Shia workers swore at her and intimidated her because of her faith. A new manager also treated her badly (criticised her, touched her inappropriately, enforced strict rules) because he wanted to employ someone else. She eventually resigned. At her new job she was ignored, and two colleagues bullied her because of her faith. She was traumatised by this experience.

    ·     She is a member of the [Congregation 2] and preaches with her mother.

    [Applicant 2]

    ·     His mother was persecuted by his father and her in-laws due to her faith.

    ·     His mother received nothing from his father, even though he owned multiple properties.

    ·     In 2015 in Mount Lebanon [in Town 3] while conducting a bible study in his car, military personnel took his magazine and warned him not to preach, and threatened to detain him next time.

    ·     In early 2016, his uncle who stood to inherit half of [Applicant 2’s] father’s estate, threatened to harm the applicants. This was the ‘straw that breaks [sic] the camel’s back’.

    ·     Around the same time, he was threatened at work by colleagues because of his faith and his car was run into. During a work trip to [Country 3] in September 2016 his boss hinted that he could no longer protect him.

    ·     He is married and has [number] children.

    Representative’s submissions

12. The representative submissions are summarised as follows.

    ·The applicants are owed protection for reason of their religion or because they are perceived to support Zionism. [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] are also owed protection as single women.

    ·Alternatively, they are owed protection because of the risk of significant economic hardship – on the basis of their disinheritance, discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses and women, and the conflict with Israel – which threatens their capacity to subsist, denial of access to basic services and the capacity to earn a livelihood.

    ·Lebanon’s personal status laws, including laws relating to divorce, discriminate against women.

    ·Lebanon does not recognise the Jehovah’s Witness faith.

    ·The Jehovah’s Witness faith requires its followers to proselytise and so they cannot be expected to be hide their faith. The consequent hostility with the authorities and members of the public amounts to persecution due to its intensive, prolonged, and repetitive nature.

    ·[Applicant 1] is vulnerable due to age and mental health.

13. The representative refers to country information to support her submissions. This includes DFAT’s report on Lebanon and the Universal Periodic Review – 2–13 November 2020, European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses – Lebanon, which states that the worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses was ‘effectively’ banned ‘on the demonstrably false charge that Jehovah’s Witnesses are inspired by world Zionism’, and further that they are prohibited from ‘importing religious literature, publicly sharing their beliefs and holding Christian meetings for worship in Kingdom Halls (places of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses). Therefore, they are forced to meet covertly in private homes to study the Bible in small groups, and they have limited access to their religious texts’.[1]

    [1] Contribution for the 37t Session of the Universal Periodic Review – 2–13 November 2020, Lebanon, European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 19 March 2020

14. In relation to the treatment of women in Lebanon, the representative refers to various country information in addition to DFAT’s report, including:

    ·A January 2015 Human Rights Watch article which refers to its own report that highlights the failure of Lebanon’s personal status laws to guarantee equality in marriage and divorce for women.[2]

    [2] Lebanon: Laws Discriminate Against Women, Human Rights Watch, 19 January 2015,

    ·A 2021 World Bank report on the status of women in Lebanon which states that Lebanon has low ranking compared to upper-middle-income countries with respect to women’s rights.[3]

    [3] The Status of Women in Lebanon” published in 2021, The Guardian, 27 February 2023, February 2023 Guardian article that reports on the high level of domestic violence in Lebanon.[4]

    [4] Burned, suffocated, beaten: why women in Lebanon are dying at the hands of their partners

    ·A May 2023 article by an associate professor who states that that religious courts violate women’s rights in personal status cases.[5]

    [5] The Harrowing State of Women’s Rights in Lebanon, Rola El-Husseini, Arab Center Washington DC, 1 May 2023,

    ·A December 2023 UN gender alert on the conflict in South Lebanon,[6] indicating that the spillover effects of the exchange of fire at the Lebanese southern border has led to socioeconomic hardship, immense emotional distress, safety concerns and frustrations with inadequate support system with respect to women.

    [6] Gender alert on the conflict in South Lebanon, UN Women, December 2023,

    ·A June 2024 article by the same associate professor as above who discusses a proposed bill which aims to eliminate discrimination against women in Lebanon’s laws.[7]

    [7] Violence Against Women in Lebanon: The Challenge of Legislative Action, Rola El-Husseini, Arab Center Washington DC, 6 June 2024,

    ·An April 2024 post which describes bystander apathy and a lack of police assistance in relation to a rape.[8]

    [8] No Protection For Women In Lebanon, Pleas For Safety Made Futile, American University of Beirut, 4 April 2023,

15. In relation to the perception that Jehovah’s Witnesses are associated with Zionists the representative refers to the following country information:

    ·A July 2024 article which reports on Iran's Acting Foreign Minister discussing the regional conflict and stating that Lebanon will be ‘hell for the Zionists’.[9]

    [9] 'Lebanon will definitely be irreversible hell for Zionists', MEHR News Agency, 17 July 2024,

    ·An October 2024 article which summarises the history of tensions between Lebanon and Israel.[10]

    [10] Beyond Hezbollah: The history of tensions between Lebanon and Israel, Al Jazeera, 17 October 2023,

16. In relation to conditions in Lebanon the representative provides the following information:

    ·     A March 2023 report by the European Union announcing an increase in humanitarian aid for Lebanon where 80% are said to live in poverty.[11]

    [11] Lebanon: €60 million in humanitarian aid for the most vulnerable, European Union, 30 March 2023,

    ·     A November 2023 report which considers the deterioration of living conditions in Lebanon exacerbated by a financial crisis from 2019, including in relation to healthcare, sanitation and electricity.[12]

    [12] In crisis-ridden Lebanon and Afghanistan, already deficient public services are in a desperate state, Equal Times, 9 November 2023,

    ·     A January 2024 report by the Institute of Development Studies which describes Lebanon’s welfare system as a fragmented system that benefits elites and leaves many in need without support.[13]

    [13] Universal social protection urgently needed in Lebanon, Institute of Development Studies, 30 January 2024,

    ·     A May 2024 press release (in relation to its own report on poverty in Lebanon) by the World Bank which states that poverty in Lebanon has more than tripled over the past decade.[14]

    [14] Lebanon: Poverty more than triples over the last decade reaching 44% under a protracted crisis, World Bank, 23 May 2024,

    Hearing on 4 September 2024

17. The Tribunal initially spoke to the applicants together and explained the purpose and procedure of the hearing. It then received oral evidence from each applicant individually while the other applicants remained outside the hearing room.

18. All three applicants took oaths on the Bible.

19. The applicants continue to live together.

20. They each confirmed their travel to [Country 3] in [specified year] in order to attend the [identified] Congress of Jehovah’s Witnesses, returning via [Country 6].

21. Their further oral evidence as given to the Tribunal is summarised below as relevant:  

    [Applicant 1]

22. [Applicant 1’s] [other children] in Lebanon live near Beirut. One of them works for a [specified] company. They are Jehovah’s Witnesses. She travelled to [Country 2] in April 2005 and June 2005 to attend their weddings because as Jehovah’s Witnesses they were unable to marry in Lebanon.

23. Her [specified siblings] live in Beirut or the surrounds and are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Her brother is in [Country 1] where he has been granted asylum as a Jehovah’s Witness. Since coming to Australia, she hasn’t spoken to her [siblings] or her [children] about their religious practice because she believes the calls are monitored.

24. Her parents continue to live in [Village 1], Mount Lebanon, where she was brought up. They support themselves from income from their land.

25. She was raised in the (Greek) Orthodox faith. Her husband is a Maronite. She moved to her husband’s home in [Village 2] in [year] when they married.

26. She became interested in the Jehovah’s Witness faith after she married and converted in 1992. This became a cause of friction resulting in the couple’s separation in the same year. She remained in the [Village 2] property. It was a two-storey house – she lived on one storey and her husband’s family lived on the other.  

27. She started to proselytise and attend meetings. The meetings were held sometimes in private homes and sometimes in other places. The Tribunal asked if she had any problems at a meeting. She replied that once a person threw an egg.

28. She described the abusive conduct of her husband and his family. In 1999 she was forced to move out with her children. She has had no contact with her husband since then.

29. She confirmed the locations where she subsequently lived which she had given to the delegate, including [Village 1] and [Town 1 and other locations] – all in Mount Lebanon Governate. She kept moving to evade her husband and his family, who would contact her by phone. Once they scratched her car and punctured its tyres. On another occasion her husband’s nephew appeared in a car, wound down the window and threatened her. She last heard from her husband’s nephew in Lebanon in 2016. The Tribunal asked why he was still bothering her then – some 17 years after she moved from [Village 2].  She thought she was still targeted because she wouldn’t give up her faith.

30. She continued to proselytise as she changed address – two or three times a week for an hour or two at a time. She would go with a friend and sometimes with [Applicant 3]. Some people received them well and some were aggressive. The Tribunal noted that this was over a period of many years and that she must have proselytised hundreds of times. The Tribunal indicated that given the duration and frequency of her proselytising, the instances of harm she gave were limited – a dog unleashed, being yelled at, having water thrown, and hearing a gun being loaded. She replied that she was scared.

31. Her son went to see her husband in [Village 2] when he was sick – some time before 2016.

1. About a month after arriving in Australia – when she still had a Lebanese mobile number – she received a call from her husband’s nephew who threatened her. She has had no contact from her husband or his family since then.

2. The Tribunal asked why she did not leave Lebanon sooner. She replied that she could not take her children out of the country until they were 18 years old. The Tribunal noted that [Applicant 3] – the younger of the two other applicants – turned 18 in 2005, 12 years before they left Lebanon for Australia.  She said it was difficult to leave her other family behind. She hadn’t thought about leaving Lebanon until 2014 when she first tasted freedom in [Country 3]. The Tribunal noted she had been a Jehovah’s Witness for 12 years when she went to [Country 3], and asked why she didn’t stay there. She said she did not apply for protection in [Country 3] because she didn’t want to cause her family problems or to risk her attendance at future conferences. The Tribunal tried to identify how her circumstances had changed by 2017 such that she was prepared then to apply for protection in Australia. She replied that she could not bear the situation any longer.

3. She described the practice of her faith in Australia, including proselytising.

4. She was visibly upset when considering the prospect of going back to Lebanon. She fears she will be tortured and killed by her husband or targeted by society as a Jehovah’s Witness. The Tribunal noted that this had not happened before and asked why she believes it would happen. She said that nothing had changed. She believes the authorities will not protect her because she would be considered a Zionist. She also expressed fear as a woman.

5. She said she has nowhere to stay in Lebanon. Her parents won’t welcome her because they are ashamed that she is a Jehovah’s Witness. She can’t stay with her [siblings] or her [other children] in Lebanon because they have their own families.

   [Applicant 3]

6. [Applicant 3] told the Tribunal she is single.

7. She has been working as an [occupation 5] since her arrival in Australia.

8. She confirmed her travel to [Country 4] and [Country 5] for a holiday in April 2015 and to [Country 3] in September 2015 to visit a friend.

9. As with her mother, she said that she does not speak to her sisters in Lebanon about their practice as Jehovah’s Witnesses because she has been told that calls – via WhatsApp – are monitored. 

10. She confirmed she was raised in [Village 2]. She was only [age] years old when she left her father’s home. She hasn’t seen her father since then. She recalled that her father was abusive towards her mother and cut off financial support, and that her father’s family were also aggressive, forcing them to leave.

11. She recalled moving from house to house, consistent with her mother’s evidence. They last lived in [Town 4]. She said they kept moving because her father and his family would locate them. She was not personally threatened by them, but her brother tells her that the family was threatened because of their faith.

12. She confirmed her baptism in 2003. She started accompanying her mother when she proselytised before then. She would later also go with another church member. She was commanded to proselytise but had to be cautious. She avoided Maronite and Muslim areas. She said sometimes people would force them off their property. Once a person threw water at her and her mother. She described another occasion in 2014 or 2015 when a person told her she was beautiful and then followed her in a car and asked her to get in. She got away by waiving down another car.  [Applicant 3] became visibly upset recalling this experience.

13. She said that she also attended meetings in groups of about 30 in various locations: private homes and rented spaces in Beirut and [Town 4]. They would have to change venue when the landlord found out the purpose of the rental and to avoid community pressure. The authorities themselves did not break up the meetings.

14. She said she was always discriminated because of her faith. The Tribunal noted that she had been able to study and work. She replied that she had avoided classes and kept a low profile at work. She said she was touched inappropriately by a colleague and reported him but instead she felt forced to resign. The Tribunal asked if this had anything to do with her faith. She said that it made her more vulnerable because she had no protection.

15. The Tribunal noted that she turned 18 years old in 2005 and asked why she didn’t leave Lebanon until 2017. She replied that she hoped the situation would improve and that it was not easy to leave the family behind. She experienced freedom in her trip to [Country 3] in 2014 and it reached a point where she could not bear the situation anymore. The Tribunal asked why she returned to Lebanon from her trips to [Country 3] in 2014 and 2015 and from her trip to [Country 4] and [Country 5] in 2015. She said that the family is one and she could not turn away from them. The Tribunal noted that the three of them were together in [Country 3] in 2014 and could have remained there together. She said overstaying would have impacted other delegates’ ability to attend conventions and she was still trying to make her situation work in Lebanon.

16. She has had no contact with her father or his family since she came to Australia and knows nothing about their circumstances.

17. She described the practice of her faith in Australia which includes proselytising weekly, card witnessing, attending the Kingdom Hall in [location], and attending conventions.

18. She said she would continue to practice her faith in Lebanon as she does in Australia. She fears hostility from the community. She fears that as Jehovah’s Witness she will be perceived as a Zionist if she returns to Lebanon, a situation exacerbated by the conflict with Israel. She also fears her father and his family.

19. She said she had nowhere to go in Lebanon. She cannot join her [siblings] because they are married.

20. She said it would be hard to find work in Lebanon. The Tribunal noted she had been employed before and was educated, skilled and had good work experience.

21. She said that as a woman she is vulnerable.

22. She has been having nightmares about returning to Lebanon. She does not take any medication or receive any other treatment.

    [Applicant 2]

23. [Applicant 2] confirmed that he married in Australia and that his wife – an Australian – is also a Jehovah’s Witness. They married at the Kingdom Hall. They have [number] children.

24. He is in contact with his [siblings] who live in Beirut with their families. Their [families] are also Jehovah’s Witnesses.  As with the other applicants, he said that he does not talk to them about their practice as Jehovah’s Witnesses because he believes the calls are monitored. He knows they attend meetings but does not know about their proselytising. He said they have been refused visit visas for Australia and [another country].

25. He confirmed that he lived [Village 2] until 1999 in a property owned by and shared with his father and his father’s family.

26. He provided an account of the applicants’ various addresses after leaving [Village 2] consistent with the other applicants’ evidence. 

27. He confirmed he was baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness in 2000. He described his religious practice in Lebanon. Jehovah’s Witnesses would meet in private homes in [named locations]. He said that when local officials found out about the meetings, they would move them on but that he was able to attend meetings from when he became a Jehovah’s Witness in 2000 until he left Lebanon in 2017.

28. He said he would proselytise about once a week. He had to be cautious about who he preached to. Twice a dog was set on him, and he also had rocks thrown at him. Once in 2015 the military told him not to preach in [Town 3]. He continued to preach elsewhere.  The Tribunal remarked that he must have proselytised hundreds of times. The Tribunal asked for any other instance of harm or threatening conduct when he was preaching but none was given. He said that it would only take one bullet to kill him. The Tribunal replied that his had not happened before.

29. He last had contact with his father in 2015 when he visited him in [Village 2] when he was sick. He was accompanied by his brother-in-law. His father urged him to renounce his faith. He refused. His uncle was also there who ‘opened up his gun’, forcing him to leave.

30. He last saw his uncle and cousin[15] in 2016 in [Town 4]. They told him that if he did not cease to be a Jehovah’s Witness then they would ‘hurt the one he loves’ which he took to be a thinly veiled threat to the other applicants. He said that he and his mother would also receive phone calls from his uncles and cousin which were about the inheritance. He was also once approached in person in [Town 5] by his cousin who punched him. The Tribunal noted the infrequency of such incidents over a period of many years.

    [15] It appears that [Applicant 2] in his oral evidence has referred incorrectly to his cousin as his nephew. The Tribunal has corrected this aspect of his evidence.

31. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants were not in fact seriously harmed by his father or his father’s family. [Applicant 2] replied that they would move each time they were located by his father’s family.

32. The Tribunal asked [Applicant 2] why his father and his father’s family retained an interest in the applicants, having moved from the family property in 1999, up to 2017 when the applicants left Lebanon, and why they would continue to have an interest in them six years later. He said the main issue was the inheritance: his father’s family were concerned that the property – owned by a Maronite family – should not be passed to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

33. [Applicant 2] confirmed his travel to [Country 3] in September 2016 for business.

34. He confirmed that a Shia work colleague ran into his car due to his faith. He also said that his boss – a tolerant Muslim – asked him to leave because people thought he was employing a Zionist and gave him an extra $2000 when he left. He said he was fired by another employer. 

35. The Tribunal asked why he did not leave Lebanon sooner. He said he went to [Country 3] in 2014 for the convention but returned to Lebanon to avoid causing difficulties for the organisation. He said he returned to Lebanon from his trip to [Country 3] in September 2016, having decided to leave Lebanon with his family. He was granted the visit visa for Australia in November 2016 and left in January 2017. The Tribunal asked why he delayed leaving by some six weeks after being issued the visa. He replied that the applicants stayed with one of his other [siblings] during this period and it took time to organise their departure.

36. His uncle called him once after his arrival in Australia and repeated a threat to disinherit the applicants because of the faith. He has had no contact with him since then. The Tribunal asked him why he believes he is at risk from his father’s family if there has been no further contact. [Applicant 2] responded that he was worried about the general lack of security in Lebanon.

37. He said he does not want to make a claim on his father’s estate. The Tribunal asked whether the issue would be resolved if he made it clear to his father’s family that this is the case. He said he was not sure. He understands that if his father dies then his mother and he and his siblings will inherit the estate by law. The Tribunal asked whether his father could write a will to exclude them. He thought it might be challenged.

38. He said that he would face poverty if he returned to Lebanon. The Tribunal noted that he had a good history of employment there.

39. He described the practice of his faith in Australia, which includes bible discussion, meetings, and proselytising.

40. He said that he would continue to be an active Jehovah’s Witness in Lebanon.

41. He said he could not join his mother’s parents in Lebanon because they are Greek Orthodox and ejected his mother. He said he can’t join his [other siblings].

42. He fears his father’s family and harm from Muslims and Maronites in the course of his Jehovah’s Witness activities. He believes he will be killed cannot obtain protection.

    Resumed hearing on 9 September 2024

43. The hearing was resumed on 9 September 2024 when the Tribunal discussed country information and concerns with all three applicants together.

44. The Tribunal presented information from the European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2020 that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon are grateful for the reasonable treatment shown by the authorities, who are said to tolerate their meetings.

100.   [Applicant 2] emphasised that the conflict with Israel had increased the perception that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Zionists, and that Jehovah’s Witnesses have been detained without trial. The Tribunal said that it had seen no evidence of this.

101.   [Applicant 3] also emphasised that they avoided proselytising in certain areas. The Tribunal suggested that avoid preaching in particular neighbourhoods would not require the applicants to alter their religious beliefs or cease to be involved in the practice of their faith. She replied that she had faced hostility when proselytising and had at times had to refrain from proselytising, and that she was not able to exercise a core value of her faith.

102.   [Applicant 2] also emphasised the hostility against Jehovah’s Witnesses from Muslims who believe they are Zionists and other Christians who believe they are dividing the church, and the lack of protection.

103.   The Tribunal presented information that in 2015 the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief stated that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon had confirmed that there is no religious persecution there. [Applicant 3] responded that that was not their experience.

104.   The Tribunal indicated that it may consider that the applicants were not harmed seriously before and that they would not be on return to Lebanon, and that there is no evidence of the withholding of protection to Jehovah’s Witnesses. The representative replied that protection depends on contacts and that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not well-connected due to their faith.

105.   The Tribunal presented information that unrecognised religious groups – including Jehovah’s Witnesses – can assemble for worship and perform their religious rites freely. The representative submitted that due to the conflict with Israel residents are more likely to be armed.

106.   The representative also emphasised the limited healthcare services which would prevent [Applicant 1] from accessing healthcare.

107.   The Tribunal presented information that women in Lebanon face a moderate risk of discrimination, and that in 2020, Lebanon’s parliament passed a new law on sexual harassment and that women’s NGOs report that there have been some improvements in protection of women by security forces. [Applicant 1] emphasised that women – without the protection of a male family member – are vulnerable and that they are additionally vulnerable because they lack protection due to their faith. [Applicant 2] said that the police do not enter most areas in Lebanon because of the presence of militia. [Applicant 3] said that Lebanon is a male-dominated society in which women refrained from complaining, laws do not protect them, and new laws are not enforced. The representative submitted that it can take generations for legal changes to lead to social changes, that inequality is entrenched, and that Jehovah’s Witnesses are excluded from institutions that provide protection.

108.   The Tribunal pointed to the applicants’ ability to work and study in Lebanon, the absence of serious physical harm, and the relative infrequency of the instances of harm provided. [Applicant 1] said that she had been persecuted and tortured her whole life in Lebanon and that she would prefer to die than return to Lebanon. [Applicant 3] emphasised her fear of return and repeated claims made previously. [Applicant 2] said that the applicants are not seeking to abuse Australia’s immigration system and that it is the Australian government’s own advice that it is not safe to travel to Lebanon.

Post hearing submissions

109.   After the hearing the representative provided additional submissions dated 10 September 2024. The submissions repeat previous submissions in part. They also refer to a January 2020 report which repeats country information that the Lebanese authorities banned the importing of Jehovah’s Witness publications and their activities due to a perceived association with Zionism.[16] The representative submits that this perceived association is a ‘death sentence’ as tensions between Israel and Lebanon have escalated.

[16] Lebanon no longer the country of religious freedoms: The reality of unrecognized sects, 30 January 2020,

110.   She also refers to a January 2024 report[17] which states that due to inflation the main employment-based social insurance scheme (which covers 44% of the population) does not cover the cost of healthcare, and most households cannot afford paying private insurance premiums. The representative submits that [Applicant 1’s] mental health would deteriorate on return to Lebanon and that she would be unable to access psychological care.

[17] Privatizing coverage: Emerging threats to universal healthcare in Lebanon, UN International Labor Organization, 30 January 2024,

111.   The representative refers to another article from September 2021, which describes Lebanon as a failed state suffering from a corrupt leadership which is responsible for the country’s ‘political instability, social unrest, and economic collapse’.[18] The representative argues that the applicants will be unemployed and homeless on return to Lebanon due to their isolation as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[18] How Lebanon’s Terrifying Past is Threatening a Lost Future, Washington Institute, 9 September 2021,

112.   On 18 October 2024, the Tribunal received further country information which is summarised as follows:

·As of September 2024, more than 200,000 people had been displaced in Lebanon since the start of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in October 2023 - maintaining decent health is significantly more challenging for women and girls experiencing menstruation or pregnancy.[19]

·As of October 2024, Israeli forces continued to clash with Hezbollah militants along the border while the Lebanese army largely looks on.[20] Israeli army strikes in Lebanon continued - including on Beirut, Nabatieh, the eastern Bekaa Valley and Nabatiyeh, targeting Hezbollah - and dozens of Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon were targeted by the Israeli navy.[21]

·Escalated hostilities since September 2023 have disrupted women’s livelihoods in Lebanon and increasing their needs for protection, shelter, food, and health and cash assistance, and as of early October 2024, an estimated 520,000 women and girls were displaced and in desperate need of shelter and safety.[22]

·Israeli strikes have killed children and those not involved with Hezbollah.[23]

[19] Escalating hostilities in Lebanon have gendered impact on women and girls, 27 September 2024, UN

[20] As Hezbollah and Israel battle on the border, Lebanon’s army watches from the sidelines, The Independent, October 2024

[21] Israel hits Beirut for first time in nearly a week as fresh strikes kill Lebanon mayor, The Independent, 16 October 2024

[22] Women share stories of crisis and displacement in Lebanon, 3 October 2024, UN Women

[23] Young Lebanese girl left fighting for life after Israeli strikes, BBC, 30 September 2024

113.   The representative submitted that single women are at higher risk of significant harm; the applicants have no home, work, or security and so will be exposed to all the impacts of war; and repeated that attacks by Israel increase hatred in the community against Jehovah’s Witnesses for being perceived Israelites or supporters of Israel.

114.   On 5 March 2025, the Tribunal received a follow-up psychological report for [Applicant 1] which states that her experiences in Lebanon have led to the development of severe emotional and psychological symptoms, physical and cognitive symptoms, indicating significant distress which impacts her daily functioning. She has received different therapies. Her condition has worsened significantly due to the uncertainty of her circumstances. Her psychological symptoms include PTSD with symptoms of dissociation, hyperarousal, and avoidance of trauma-related triggers.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

115.   The delegate found the applicants to give their evidence in an open and forthright manner. The Tribunal similarly found them to be credible witnesses.

116.   Their evidence is broadly consistent with each other and over the course of their matters, including their protection visa application forms, their statutory declarations, their oral evidence to the delegate, their written statements to the Tribunal and their oral evidence at the hearing.

117.   The applicants have been examined extensively. They have discussed their claims in a manner that indicates that they are recalling events in Lebanon from memory. They answered the Tribunal’s questions spontaneously and in some detail. At times [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] appeared visibly upset when giving their evidence which underscores the genuineness of their claims.

118.   The applicants’ claims are also consistent broadly with country information:

·Jehovah’s Witnesses have been present in Lebanon since the 1920s although it is difficult to estimate their number due to the underground nature of their faith.[24]

·They are an unrecognised religious groups in Lebanon.[25]

·In Lebanon, issues of personal status – such as marriage, divorce, custody of children, or inheritance – are addressed in religious courts and are based on religious laws, which are independent of, but recognised by, the state. Lebanon does not formally allow civil marriage or divorce.[26]

·Unrecognised religious groups cannot perform legally recognised marriage or divorce proceedings, and do not have standing to determine inheritance issues. They can, however, legally own property.[27]

·Maronites Christians are the largest Christian group in Lebanon and are concentrated in Mount Lebanon governorate, and in Beirut and its surrounds.[28]

·Children of mixed marriages officially take the father’s religion.[29]

·It appears that divorce is not a concept in the Maronite church.[30] It is possible to obtain a temporary or permanent desertion, (or an annulment or dissolution) ‘but the matrimonial bond still exists and neither spouse can remarry.’[31]

·None of the personal status codes recognise a wife’s economic and non-economic contributions to a marriage, including the value of unpaid labour or the concept of marital property. In addition, cultural, religious, and traditional expectations and norms can undermine a woman’s economic independence and contribute to her financial dependence on her husband.[32]

[24] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report, Lebanon, 26 June 2023, para.3.16

[25] Ibid, para.3.15

[26] Ibid, para.3.24

[27] Ibid, para.3.25

[28] Ibid, paras.3.18 and 3.19

[29] Ibid, para.3.25

[30] Mattar Law Firm website,

[31] Unequal and Unprotected: Women's Rights Under Lebanese Personal Status Law', Human Rights Watch, 19 January 2015, p.56 (footnote 124)

[32] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report, Lebanon, 26 June 2023, para.3.27

119.   There is somewhat mixed information about the extent to which Jehovah’s Witnesses are able to practice freely:

·DFAT states in its latest report on Lebanon that it is reported that unrecognised religious groups can assemble for worship and perform their religious rites freely.[33]

[33] Ibid, para.3.15

·The European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses stated in 2020 that Jehovah’s Witnesses were ‘effectively banned’ in Arab countries in 1964 because it was considered to be inspired by Zionism, and they are ‘…prohibited from importing religious literature, publicly sharing their beliefs and holding Christian meetings for worship in Kingdom Halls (places of worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses). Therefore, they are forced to meet covertly in private homes to study the Bible in small groups, and they have limited access to their religious texts.[34] However the same source goes on to state that ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon have expressed on several occasion [sic] their gratitude for the generally reasonable treatment shown by the authorities, who tolerate their well-known peaceful Christian meetings and allow them to gather peacefully’.[35]

·In relation to proselytising the current DFAT report on Lebanon states: ‘In-country sources told DFAT that recognised Christian churches tend to be antagonistic towards Jehovah’s Witnesses (and also towards Protestant churches, such as Baptists, Pentecostals, Quakers and others). Such antagonism has focused on proselytising and conversion, reportedly because it has implications for church revenue generation’. [36]

·In its 2014 report – when the applicants were residing in Lebanon – DFAT stated that ‘[t]here are no legal barriers to proselytising’.[37] Conversely, a news article from 2008 stated that it is unlawful for Jehovah’s Witnesses to distribute material on the street, and they are also ‘…prohibited from handing someone religious materials the first time they visit a house. If the people in that house invite them back or request some printed material, the Witnesses can distribute it.’[38]

·There is also some disagreement with regard to whether Jehovah’s Witnesses around that time faced any societal mistreatment. Freedom House in its 2016 report stated that proselytising is ‘strongly discouraged by religious leaders and communities, sometimes with the threat of violence’,[39] whereas DFAT stated in its 2014 report that:

‘Though there might be some social opposition to proselytising, DFAT contacts have said these communities [including Jehovah’s Witnesses] can proselytise in practice, as long as they do so in a relatively low-key manner… DFAT assesses that unrecognised religious groups are not at risk from violence in Lebanon, whether sectarian or perpetrated by the state…DFAT understands that there is generally more social resistance to conversion to religions that include elements of active proselytising, but that this would not normally amount to violence’.[40]

·In 2015, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, conducted a mission to Lebanon and his report from the same year states:

‘Religious persecution is unknown in the country. As much was confirmed also by members of non-recognized communities, such as the Baha’is and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who, although feeling exposed to stereotyping and discrimination, still voiced their clear appreciation for the fact that they can live in Lebanon in safety and in accordance with their religious convictions’.[41]

[34] The European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Contribution for the 37th Session of the UPR (2–13 November 2020), Lebanon

[35] The European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Contribution for the 37th Session of the UPR (2–13 November 2020), Lebanon

[36] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report, Lebanon, 26 June 2023, para.3.16

[37] DFAT, DFAT Country Report Lebanon, 25 February 2014, p.14

[38] Faith comes knocking, NOW Lebanon, 16 November 2008

[39] Freedom in the World 2016 – Lebanon, Freedom House, 14 July 2016

[40] DFAT, DFAT Country Report Lebanon, 25 February 2014, pp.14-15

[41] Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on his mission to Lebanon’, UN Human Rights Council, 30 November 2015, p.8,

120.   Despite this somewhat mixed country information, the applicants’ evidence is broadly consistent with it: that is, that they have met some hostility from residents when proselytising and they have conducted meetings in private, but that they have generally had no resistance from the authorities (other than the one occasion when [Applicant 2] was told not to proselytise in a certain area).

121.   The applicants’ evidence has consistently been that [Applicant 1’s] husband’s family have targeted the applicants in part because of the inheritance issue. It appears to be their case that they will inherit by law and that [Applicant 1’s] husband’s family do not wish the property to go Jehovah’s Witnesses. This has some support: It appears that under Lebanese law where someone dies intestate their children are first in line to inherit.[42] It does not explain why [Applicant 1’s] husband could not simply write the applicants out of his will if he has one – or make one to exclude them if he doesn’t – which would appear to resolve the issue. The applicants have not satisfactorily explained why this could not be done. The Tribunal cannot identify any information on Maronite inheritance law. It appears from the applicants’ evidence that [Applicant 1’s] in-laws are in fact using the threat of disinheritance as a way of forcing the applicants to renounce their faith. In any case, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that [Applicant 1’s] in-laws’ intermittently over many years threatened the applicants because of their change in faith.

[42] Mattar Law website, 

122.   The applicants have provided copious evidence of their activity in Australia as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

123.   In light of the above and the supporting documentation the Tribunal accepts the applicants’ claims in full. It finds in particular the following:

·     [Applicant 1] was born into the Greek Orthodox church. The other applicants were born into the Maronite church – their father’s church.

·     The applicants were baptised as Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon (in 1992, 2000 and 2003).

·     [Applicant 1’s] brother is a Jehovah’s Witness and is in [Country 1].

·     [Applicant 1] has [other children] in Lebanon who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and who travelled to [Country 2] to marry because they were unable to do so in Lebanon as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

·     [Applicant 1] was in an abusive marriage and separated in 1992 because her husband could not tolerate her change in faith. She was not given a settlement.

·     She remained in her husband’s property in [Village 2], Mount Lebanon, which she shared with her husband’s family – her husband periodically returning. In 1999 she felt compelled to leave – taking her children – due to her husband’s and his family’s abusive behaviour.

·     [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] have had no direct contact with [Applicant 1’s] husband since 1999.

·     The applicants lived at various locations in Mount Lebanon from 1999 to 2017 because they feared they would be located by [Applicant 1’s] husband and his family. Over this period [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 2] received calls from [Applicant 1’s] husband’s family.

·     [Applicant 1’s] family once scratched her car and punctured its tyres. On another occasion her nephew appeared in a car, wound down the window and threatened her.

·     In 2015 [Applicant 2] last had contact with his father when he visited him in [Village 2]. On that occasion he was threatened with physical violence by his uncle when he declined to renounce his faith, and his uncle reasserted that the applicants would not inherit anything (The Tribunal notes that [Applicant 2] told the delegate only that he was pushed - he did not say that his uncle had a gun).

·     [Applicant 2] was once approached in person in [Town 5] by his cousin, who punched him.

·     In 2016 [Applicant 2] last saw his uncle and cousin in [Town 4 variant] – they threatened to harm his mother and sister if he did not renounce his faith and reasserted that the applicants would not inherit anything while they remained Jehovah’s Witnesses.

·     The cause of [Applicant 1’s] husband’s family’s ire was its desire to prevent the applicants from receiving an inheritance, owing to their change in faith.

·     [Applicant 1] remains married and is unable to secure a divorce.

·     The Jehovah’s Witnesses religion is not recognised in Lebanon.

·     The applicants were members of the [Congregation 1] Jehovah's Witness Congregation in Mount Lebanon.

·     The applicants attended Jehovah’s Witnesses meetings, which were held in various locations, including [named locations] and Beirut. The locations were kept secret and changed from time to time due to local disapproval. They also proselytised in Mount Lebanon, including in [named locations]. They limited their proselytising by avoiding certain areas – Maronite and Muslim – where they anticipated a hostile reaction.  

·     In the course of their proselytising, the applicants have experienced instances of hostility: dogs have been set on them; [Applicant 3] and [Applicant 1] once had water thrown at them; [Applicant 1] believes she once heard a gun being loaded; they have been shouted at and threatened and had rocks thrown at them; [Applicant 2] was once hit; [Applicant 3] was pushed; [Applicant 3] was once in 2014 or 2015 followed by a car and the driver insisted she get in; in 2015 the police stopped [Applicant 2] whilst proselytising in [Town 3] and confiscated his Jehovah’s Witnesses literature, and warned him not to proselytise in that area under threat of detention.  

·     [Applicant 3] has a degree in [subject 2] and has worked in Lebanon since she graduated in [year] until leaving in 2017 as [an occupation 4]/[an occupation 5]. [Applicant 2] worked in Lebanon from [year] until leaving in 2017 as [an occupation 2] and [an occupation 3]. [Applicant 1] worked as a self-employed [occupation 1] in Lebanon.

·     [Applicant 3] has experienced instances of discrimination because of her adherence to her faith in education and employment: she was slapped and wrapped on the knuckles by a teacher, and escorted from the school grounds; she was ostracised at university; she was bullied at work leading her to resign from one of her jobs.

·     [Applicant 2] also experienced instances of discrimination because of his faith. He was forced to leave one job and a colleague ran into his car.

·     The applicants travelled together to [a] Congress of Jehovah’s Witnesses in [Country 3] in [specified year]. [Applicant 3] travelled to [Country 5]/[Country 4] in April 2015 for a holiday. She also visited a friend in [Country 3] in September 2015. [Applicant 2] travelled to [Country 3] in September 2016 on business.

·     They are active Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia – including by way of proselytising – and are members of the [Congregation 2].

·     They would continue to be active Jehovah’s Witnesses on return to Lebanon, including by way of attending meetings and proselytising.

·     They have a subjective fear of returning to Lebanon.

·     [Applicant 2] married in Australia a Jehovah’s Witness in a Jehovah’s Witnesses ceremony and has [Australian-born] children.

·     [Applicant 1] suffers anxiety/depression/significant distress – she receives counselling/ therapy but no regular medication. 

·     [Applicant 1] has had no contact with her husband’s family since receiving a call from her nephew shortly after arriving in Australia. [Applicant 3] has had not contact with her father or his family since coming to Australia. [Applicant 2] has had no contact with his father’s family since receiving a call from his uncle shortly after his arrival in Australia.

Do the applicants satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?

124.   The Tribunal assesses the applicants would return to Beirut or its surrounds, including Mount Lebanon Governate where they previously lived.

[Applicant 1]’s husband and his family

125.   As discussed with the applicants they have not been harmed – at least not seriously – since they left [Village 2 variant]. The Tribunal has accepted that [Applicant 1] was in abusive relationship with her husband. However, she has had no contact with him since she left the marital home in 1999 – 26 years ago and 18 years before she left Lebanon for Australia. Neither has [Applicant 3] had any contact with her father in that period.

126.   [Applicant 1’s] husband and his family had the opportunity to harm the applicants but did not over that period while they were in Lebanon. The Tribunal does not accept that a reason for this is that the applicants were able to evade the family by moving from place to place. On their own account [Applicant 1’s] husband’s family came across the applicants on a few occasions. On those occasions [Applicant 1’s] husband’s family may have conducted themselves in a threatening manner, but they did not harm the applicants. This includes when [Applicant 2] saw his father and his uncle in 2015 in [Village 2] and saw his uncle and cousin in [Town 4 variant] in 2016. The only instance of physical harm is when [Applicant 2] was once approached in person in [Town 5] by his cousin, who punched him.

127.   The Tribunal accepts that the general situation may have been distressing for the applicants, including receiving threatening calls from time to time, but it falls short of serious harm. This situation applied over many years, over which period there are only a limited number of instances of threatening conduct. [Applicant 2] described seeing his uncle and cousin in early 2016 as the ‘last straw’ but the applicants did not leave Lebanon until January 2017, many months later, and there is no indication of any further threats in that period.

128.   The applicants have had no contact with [Applicant 1’s] husband and his family since shortly arriving in Australia in January 2017, eight years ago. Nothing is known about their present circumstances. As the Tribunal pointed out it is not even known whether [Applicant 1’s] husband is still alive or what has happened to his property. The applicants remain in contact with [Applicant 1’s] [other children] in Lebanon who are also Jehovah’s Witnesses and would seem to similarly to have the same inheritance rights as the applicants. However, there is no information that [Applicant 1’s] husband or his family have contacted them either in respect of the applicants or in respect of their own inheritance.

129.   In light of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of the applicants being subject to harm by [Applicant 1’s] husband and his family in the foreseeable future on their return to Lebanon.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

130.   DFAT assesses there is a moderate risk of official discrimination against members of unrecognised religious groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, in that personal status laws restrict access to marriage, divorce, or inheritance available to other Lebanese.[43]

[43] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report, Lebanon, 26 June 2023, para.3.60

131.   In [Applicant 1’s] case she is unable to divorce her husband, which is a result not of her faith as a Jehovah’s Witness but that of her husband’s faith as Maronite. She has not been able to obtain a financial settlement following her separation in 1999. Nonetheless there is no information that this has in any way caused her serious harm or that personal status laws or the absence of civil law options for personal status matters have caused or would cause [Applicant 3] and [Applicant 1] serious harm as women and as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

132.   [Applicant 2] is already married (registered with the New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages). [Applicant 3] is not married but it would be open to her to travel to [Country 2] in order to marry in a civil service if she so wishes, as her sisters have done – so as to avoid a religious (non-Jehovah’s Witness) marriage in Lebanon – and to register the marriage on return to Lebanon.[44]

[44] Ibid, para.3.26

133.   The Tribunal assesses that that any such discrimination in terms of personal status laws do not amount to serious harm.

134.   The threat of denial of inheritance by [Applicant 1’s] husband appears only to relate to the applicants’ faith to the extent that [Applicant 1’s] husband seeks to deny the applicants any inheritance because as a Maronite he disapproves of their change in faith.  Rejection or ostracism by one’s own family would not of itself usually constitute persecution as it is a purely private matter, even if it relates to one or more of the reasons in s 5J(1)(a).[45]

[45] MMM v MIMA (1998) 90 FCR 324

135.   The Tribunal has accepted the applicants have faced some hostility when proselytising. They have provided instances of hostile reactions by residents, but none of these individually amounts to serious harm. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that regarding the totality of circumstances, the cumulative effect of these instances of harm, which of themselves do not constitute persecution, lead to a conclusion that the combined effect of the harm is sufficiently serious to constitute persecution. The instances are relatively few when considered against the period over which the applicants were active Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon: around 26 years in the case of [Applicant 1], 17 years in the case of [Applicant 2], and 14 years in the case of [Applicant 3], over which time the applicants would have proselytised on hundreds of occasions.

136.   No information has been presented that the Lebanese authorities sought to prevent the applicants from proselytising. [Applicant 2] has presented only one instance of the police moving him on from a particular area – and confiscating his religious literature – and telling him not to proselytise there again. He was not detained or from [Applicant 2’s] evidence told he could not proselytise elsewhere.

137.   The Tribunal has accepted that the Jehovah’s Witnesses meetings were moved from time to time due to local disapproval but again this was over a long period, and no information is presented that the meetings were not able to take place or that they were disrupted in any way (other than someone throwing eggs on one occasion). The applicants have attended meetings in Lebanon over many years.

138.   The Tribunal has accepted that the applicants have experienced some discrimination as a result of their faith. However, the instances of such discrimination are limited in number and are also particular to time and place. Again, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these instances of discrimination amount to instances of serious harm or that the combined effect of the harm is sufficiently serious to constitute persecution. It is the case that [Applicant 2] and [Applicant 3] were both educated in Lebanon and employed continuously after completing their education and until leaving Lebanon in 2017: [Applicant 2] from [year] and [Applicant 3] from [year]. They were both successful in their professional fields. [Applicant 3] enjoyed promotion. [Applicant 2] had the support of his employer until a conflict arose in the workplace. The Tribunal has accepted that [Applicant 3] was subject to bullying in the workplace – including inappropriate touching – but her evidence does not clearly indicate that she was targeted because of her faith.

139.   That the applicants were not seriously harmed or at risk of being seriously harmed as a result of the practice of their faith is reflected in their travel history. The applicants travelled together to [Country 3] in 2014. [Applicant 2] and [Applicant 3] also travelled separately to [Country 3] in 2015 and 2016, and [Applicant 3] travelled to [Country 4] and [Country 5] in 2015. Each time they returned to Lebanon, which is not the conduct of a person who fears persecution. The Tribunal accepts the notion that a situation can become intolerable over time and gradually. However, the applicants by 2014 had been practising as Jehovah’s Witnesses over many years, and they have not indicated a deterioration of circumstances in terms of their religious practice – or a particular incident – following their return to Lebanon that led to their decision to seek protection in Australia. Rather it appears that the trigger for their decision to leave was not to do with their religious practice but the threat from [Applicant 1’s] brother-in-law in early 2016 (even this was many months before the applicants left Lebanon for Australia).

140.   It was open to the applicants to apply for protection when they were together in [Country 3] in 2014. Their concern for potential adverse consequences for the organisers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses convention which they attended or their ability to attend future conventions appears to exceed that for their own safety on return to Lebanon. [Applicant 2] and [Applicant 3] may also not have wished to have sought protection without the others – in what the Tribunal accepts is a close family unit – however this does not alter the Tribunal’s view that they would not have returned to Lebanon (and remained there for some time) if they had serious concerns about their safety. The lack of urgency in their situation is underlined by the applicants’ delay in leaving Lebanon – by some six weeks after being issued visit visas for Australia.

141.   [Applicant 1’s] [siblings] and her [other children and their families] remain in Lebanon and are Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is no information that they have been harmed seriously in the practice of their faith. The Tribunal finds it curious that the applicants would not know more about their relatives’ religious practice given the relevance to their own situation. There is no evidence that the Lebanese authorities monitor WhatsApp calls or that they would have any particular interest in the applicants if they did.

142.   There is not an abundance of country information regarding the current situation for Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lebanon.  There is no mention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the US Department of State’s most recent International Religious Freedom Report on Lebanon.[46] However the available country information does not indicate that the general situation for Jehovah’s Witnesses has deteriorated since the applicants left Lebanon. Rather, in addition to the above-country information, in-country sources told DFAT that the hostility of recognised Christian churches towards Jehovah’s Witnesses has reduced in recent years.[47] Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) states in its 2023 report that Jehovah’s Witnesses are permitted to perform their religious rites freely.[48] The weight of the above country information indicates that the treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses falls short of persecution. There are some restrictions on their ability to practice freely, in that by decree they cannot import religious literature, publicly share their beliefs, or hold meetings for worship in Kingdom Halls – requiring them to conduct meetings in private – but that in practice they are tolerated by the authorities. There is some hostility from residents and recognised Christian churches to their proselytising. This is consistent with the applicants’ own experience.

[46] US Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report, Lebanon, 2023,  

[47] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report, Lebanon, 26 June 2023, para.3.16

[48] Aid to Church, Religious Freedom Report, Lebanon, 2023,

143.   The Tribunal recognises however that the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which was triggered by the conflict between Israel and Gaza, makes the task of assessing future risk more challenging. The above country information regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses predates the recent conflict. Between October 2023 and late November 2024, Lebanon experienced the largest escalation of hostilities with Israel since the 2006 war. Intense Israeli airstrikes coupled with evacuation orders across Lebanon, including in eastern and southern Lebanon and the southern suburbs of Beirut, resulted in mass displacement and heightened socioeconomic vulnerabilities among affected populations. As of 24 November 2024, close to 900,000 individuals were displaced due to the conflict. Following the ceasefire reached on 27 November 2024, around 80 per cent of internally displaced persons (IDPs) are estimated to have returned to their places of origin.[49] As of 8 January 2025 more than 868,947 internally displaced persons (IDPs) have begun returning to their communities.[50]

[49] Gender and Displacement in Lebanon at the Juncture of the Ceasefire, UN Women, December 2024

[50] LEBANON EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY UPDATE # 7, 1 – 12 JANUARY 2025, IOM,

144.   Nonetheless the situation continues to be volatile. As [Applicant 2] pointed out the Australian government’s advice (current at 25 March 2025) is not to travel to Lebanon due to the volatile security situation and the risk it could deteriorate with little notice.[51] The Washington Institute provides an online map of strikes in Lebanon, including Israeli activity post-ceasefire.[52] This activity is concentrated on the southern border south of Mount Lebanon Governate. There is no activity in Beirut or Mount Lebanon Governate. There is recent reporting that Israeli forces opened fire on people trying to return to their homes on the border, killing more than 20 people and injuring 124, Israel stating that the Lebanese state had not yet ‘fully enforced’ a deal to secure the south. Israeli troops were due to depart southern Lebanon by 18 February 2025 but have remained in five locations.[53] Villages along the border are reported to have been flattened by Israeli detonations, with critics accusing Israel of trying to create a buffer zone to protect its north, by making adjoining parts of Lebanon uninhabitable.[54] However this is south of Mount Lebanon Governate, away from where the applicants previous resided and where the Tribunal assesses they would return. On 22 March 2025 Israel carried out a strike in Tyre, south Lebanon, killing one and wounding seven people and ‘endangering the shaky truce that ended a year-long conflict against Hezbollah…’. Israel has also conducted hundreds of airstrikes on Lebanon despite the truce.[55] It is also reported that on 22 March 2025 a strike in the southern village of Touline killed five people, including a child, and wounded 11 others.[56] Israel and Gaza also reached a ceasefire in January 2025. However, the ceasefire was broken on 18 March 2025, and at the date of this decision Israel continues to launch airstrikes in Gaza.[57]

[51]

[52]

[53] Israel fires on Lebanon after rocket attack in the heaviest exchange since truce with Hezbollah, 22 March 2025, NBC News,

[54] Israeli troops kill more than 20 in Lebanon and one in Gaza as residents try to return, 26 January 2025, The Guardian,

[55] Deadly Israeli strikes in Gaza and Lebanon amid calls for halt to ‘endless war’, The Guardian, 23 March 2025,

[56] Israel fires on Lebanon after rocket attack in the heaviest exchange since truce with Hezbollah, 22 March 2025, NBC News, ‘A nightmare come true’: Palestinians flee again after Israel’s attacks on Gaza, The Guardian, 18 March 2025, What we know about the Gaza ceasefire deal, 26 January

145.   The applicants have claimed that they are at heightened risk because of an association of Jehovah’s Witnesses with Zionism, exacerbated by the conflict with Israel. The representative has provided information from one source that the charge of Zionism was behind the ‘effective’ banning of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1964. The representative has also provided information that the Iranian Acting Foreign Minister threatened that Lebanon will be ‘hell for the Zionists’ but this appears to be a reference to the Israeli regime and does not connect Jehovah’s Witnesses to Zionism. Her other country reference merely summarises the history of tensions between Lebanon and Israel and again does not provide evidence of a connection between Zionism and Jehovah’s Witnesses or an increase in hostility towards Jehovah’s Witnesses because of the recent conflict. Nonetheless the Tribunal recognises a hostility towards Jehovah’s Witnesses, which in part at least appears plausibly to be due to a misguided association of Jehovah’s Witnesses with Zionism or Judaism. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 for instance that according to one Jehovah’s Witness convert, the Maronite community spread lies that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Jews.[58] That the Maronite community should adopt such an attitude is consistent with the applicants own experience of being outcast by their Maronite family due to their conversion.

[58] LEBANON: In Muslim Middle East, Jehovah’s Witnesses congregate in secret, LA Times, 17 April 2010,

146.   The Tribunal has accepted that the applicants would continue to be active Jehovah’s Witnesses on return to Lebanon, including by way of proselytising. The Tribunal cannot be confident that they wouldn’t be harmed by residents in pursuing their religious practice in the current volatile situation, which the Tribunal assesses is likely to have increased the level of hostility towards Jehovah’s Witnesses due to a perceived association with the Israeli regime. Moreover, given the largescale displacement, the task of seeking to avoid certain communities is likely harder, even if IDPs have begun returning to their communities.

147.   DFAT states that members of unrecognised religious groups may face low- to medium-level societal discrimination and harassment, and that such discrimination is unlikely to include violence, as members of unrecognised religious groups are typically protected to some degree by their relative anonymity.[59] However, the applicants as proselytisers are unable to maintain anonymity, especially in the small communities such as those in which the applicants have lived and given the sectarian nature of those communities. The Tribunal assesses that there is a real chance of serious harm in the current circumstances and foreseeable future in the form of a threat to life or liberty, or significant physical harassment or ill-treatment. A ‘real chance’ in the context of refugee assessment has been described by the High Court as a substantial chance, as distinct from a remote or far-fetched possibility; however, it may be well below a 50 per cent chance.[60] The Tribunal also assesses that the risk of harm is exacerbated by the increased vulnerability of [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 3] due their gender, and of [Applicant 1] due to her age and her mental health which the Tribunal assesses would deteriorate further on return to Lebanon.

[59] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report, Lebanon, 26 June 2023, para.3.23

[60] Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379; MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559.

148.   The Tribunal finds that the reasons for the harm are religion or imputed political opinion (Zionism), which are the essential and significant reasons for the persecution, and that the harm involves systematic and discriminatory conduct.

149.   The Tribunal further finds that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Lebanon given the current circumstances in Lebanon, as identified above.

150.   The Tribunal finds that there are no effective protection measures available to the applicants in Lebanon, especially in the current circumstances and in light of a general hostility towards Jehovah’s Witnesses. Local police units are reportedly subject to the discretionary power of the local mayor. Municipal police units are reportedly under-resourced, under-trained and under-staffed in a majority of areas.[61]The capacities of the municipal police vary significantly across locations.[62] In Beirut’s southern suburbs, the municipal police force works under the direction of Hezbollah,[63] which as a Shia Muslim organisation resisting and targeted by Israeli forces is very unlikely to look favourably on the applicants as Jehovah’s Witnesses. DFAT states that, due to lack of finances and inability to pay wages, many ‘municipalities have laid off police and sources report that their role has, to some degree, been replaced by vigilantism’.[64] The International Crisis Group notes that a ‘mosaic of local security arrangements is forming as municipal police and political party activists join with commercial providers and resident volunteers to keep neighbourhoods and villages safe.’[65] Local political parties and sectarian groups provide some private security where municipal policing is absent.[66] As Jehovah Witnesses the applicants would not have parties or sectarian groups to turn to.

[61] Are municipalities in Lebanon delivering?: Survey results on solid waste management, public safety, and citizen outreach at the local level, Democracy Reporting International, June 2019, See also: 'The Security Sector in Lebanon - Jurisdiction and Organization', Carnegie Endowment, 21 February 2018, pp.15-16,

[62] Security that Protects: Informing Policy on Local Security Provision in Lebanese Communities Hosting Syrian Refugees', International Alert, n.d., ‘How Hezbollah holds sway over the Lebanese state', Chatham House, 30 June 2021, p.11,

[64] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon, 26 June 2023, p.30

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

[66] How a poorly paid and multi-employed police force is driving private security initiatives in Lebanon', Equal Times, 27 March 2023,

151.   The Tribunal recognises that a person cannot be expected to take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country where that modification would require the person to alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or concealing his or her true religious beliefs, or ceasing to be involved in the practice of his or her faith. The Tribunal also recognises that proselytising is an integral part of the practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

152.   According to 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, the Tribunal finds that the applicants do not have a right to enter and reside in a third country and s 36(3) is therefore not applicable.

153. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

DECISION

154. The Tribunal sets aside and remits the applications for protection visas for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicants satisfy s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Date(s) of hearing:   4 September 2024 and 9 September 2024

Representative for the Applicant:       Ms Emma Hungerford Espino (MARN: 1808715)

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.

…