1930000 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 753

1930000 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 753 (10 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Mr Edward Von-Shoostov Nalbandian
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1930000
Tribunal:General Member R Guemy
Date:10 March 2025

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 10 March 2025 at 2:19pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – socio-economic and internal and external security conditions and human rights – religion – Shia Muslim – no political affiliation – fear of forced recruitment by armed forces or Hezbollah – family home recently destroyed and family relocated – country information – possibility of harm in home area speculative – economic conditions not systematic and discriminatory – request for referral for ministerial consideration – strong compassionate circumstances – Australian citizen wife and child, and business employing Australian citizens – wife’s physical and mental health – matter referred – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), (4)(b), (c), (5), 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA [1989] HCA 62
Randhawa v MILGEA [1993] FCA 592
Selvadurai v MIEA [1994] 34 ALD 347
SZLJK v MIAC [2008] FMCA 694
SZNWA v MIAC [2010] FCA 470
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
BACKGROUND

The applicant, a [Age]year old male and citizen of Lebanon. He last entered Australia [in] February 2016. He applied for a protection visa on 11 September 2017.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence given to the Department
The applicant provided a copy of the bio page of his Lebanese passport issued on [date].
In his written protection visa application the applicant claimed that:
i.He left Lebanon to escape from the all the war, inhumanity and lack of human rights;
ii.He had experienced psychological harm from unjust people in Lebanon;
iii.Lebanon is a corrupt country and nobody there can or is willing to help;
iv.He did not have anywhere else to go;
v.He would be mistreated by people in Lebanon who are inhuman and unjust and will not have any human rights or freedom there;
vi.The authorities in Lebanon are corrupt and nobody could protect him; and
vii.The entire country is the same and there is nowhere safe to go.
The applicant’s former representative provided written submissions outlining the applicant’s personal background and Australian visa history, and also referring to country information from Human Rights Watch, Al Jazeera and the Australian Government Smart Traveller website about the security situation in Lebanon. She also provided various links to online information about Lebanon.
The applicant also provided a statement in support of his written claims which outlined the following:
i.His personal background, including his previous relationship with an Australian citizen which was the subject of an unsuccessful partner visa application;
ii.How his fear of returning to Lebanon led to the breakdown of this previous relationship and his referral to a psychologist;
iii.Events that he purportedly witnessed in Lebanon when he last visited there in 2016, including people being randomly killed, people carrying weapons and children being forced to beg or being slaves, home invasions, shootings;
iv.He did not sleep and was anxious and scared while in Lebanon in 2016, fearing that rocket blasts and being shot;
v.The entirety of Lebanon is unsafe and violence can strike at any time with street violence in some areas and the risk of war between Lebanon and Israel in others;
vi.The police and army in Lebanon are corrupt, working on bribes and power and do not care about normal civilians like the him;
vii.He does not have anyone that could help him and that the only people who can survive in Lebanon are those with weapons;
viii.He feared becoming a victim of war and being killed in a war between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel due to conflict between the two groups;
ix.He would feared that he would be harmed on the basis of his mental health, that Lebanese authorities would pick on him because he is a simple person, and that people would be discriminatory and unjust.
The Department’s delegate invited the applicant to attend an interview and rescheduled the date several times at the applicant’s request, but the applicant eventually requested that a decision be made based on his statement of claims.
The delegate considered country information about the security situation and state protection in Lebanon, and media reporting at the time of their decision indicating an escalation in tensions between Israel and Hezbollah, however he found that the likelihood of war between Lebanon with Israel or any other nation in the foreseeable future was speculative and was not satisfied that there was a real chance that strikes between Hezbollah and Israel along the Israeli-Lebanese border would escalate to a point where the applicant would face a real chance or real risk of being killed or subjected to any other serious harm. He also found that there was no information suggesting that the applicant would be denied protection or assistance from Lebanese authorities if he required it for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s 5J(1)(a).
The delegate found that the applicant was not a refugee as defined in s 5H of the Act and did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(a). He also found that there were no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Lebanon, there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm, and so did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
On 27 September 2019, the delegate decided to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Evidence given to the Tribunal
On 22 October 2019, the applicant applied to the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the delegate’s decision.
On 28 November 2023, he appointed his current representative.
On 20 December 2023, the applicant’s representative provided the Tribunal written submissions outlining grounds for referral to the Minister in the event of the Tribunal making an unfavourable decision on the review application. These included: the emotional and financial impact on the applicant, his Australian citizen wife and child in the event he were to return to Lebanon; the applicant’s economic contributions since living in Australia including establishing a small business and employing Australian staff and obtaining various educational qualifications.
The applicant’s representative provided written submissions on the conflict which had escalated between Israel and Hamas in late 2023 and the possibility of Lebanon becoming involved in that conflict and that there was a high likelihood that Lebanese authorities would require all able-bodied men to enlist in the military to defend the country. The applicant’s representative also addressed the level of state protection that Lebanese authorities could afford its citizens.
The applicant’s representative provided various attachments to the written submissions, including:
i.The applicant’s passport issued by Lebanese authorities;
ii.Marriage certificate of the applicant to [Ms A] [in] October 2020;
iii.Birth certificate of [the child];
iv.Australian passport of [the child];
v.Birth certificate of [Ms A];
vi.Letter from [Dr B] dated 09/11/2023 outlining stress and anxiety that the applicant’s wife has experienced about the applicant’s visa situation;
vii.ASIC entry for [Company 1];
viii.Online content from the DFAT Crisis Hub website about the Hamas-Israel conflict;
ix.A large number of photos of the applicant in various social settings with his wife and [child];
x.Academic Article “Children’s emotional and behavioural well-being and the family environment: findings from the Health Survey for England” published in Social Science & Medicine 53 (2001) 423-440;
xi.Applicant’s academic transcripts and certificates for Certificate III in [Subject 1a], Certificate IV in [Subject 1b], and Advanced Diploma of [Subject 1b] issued by [Institution] to the applicant;
xii.Certificate issued by [Institution] to the applicant for completing English for Academic Purposes 2;
xiii.Applicant’s [Institution] student card;
xiv.Applicant’s identity card in Arabic script;
xv.Letter of offer dated 9 March 2015 issued by [University] to the applicant to undertake a Bachelor of [Subject 1b];
xvi.Profit and loss statements, Depreciation Schedule, Director’s Declaration, Compilation Report, Activity Statement for [Company 1];
xvii.Statement of Attainment issued to the applicant by [RTO 1];
xviii.National Competency card issued to the applicant by [RTO 2], ID card issued to applicant by [RTO 3], [RTO 1] card issued to the applicant, [Work sector] Induction card issued to applicant;
xix.Heavy vehicle licences (and other forms of ID) of [Mr C], [Mr D], [Mr E], [Mr F];
xx.[Bank] statement evidencing payment of wages to abovementioned individuals;
xxi.Various photos of the applicant engaged in [job task 1] work;
xxii.Travel advice on DFAT Smart Traveller website in relation to Lebanon;
xxiii.Letter of support signed by [Mr G], President of the [Organisation]; and
xxiv.Letter of support signed by [Mr H], owner of [Company 2].
On 14 October 2024, the 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.
On 21 October 2024, the applicant’s representative sent to the Tribunal additional written submissions addressing developments at that time in relation to Israel’s bombing of Lebanon in connection with its campaign against Hezbollah. The submissions were accompanied by photos sourced by the applicant’s family members purporting to depict destruction of buildings as a result of attacks by Israel on Lebanese territory along with copies of identity documents of various members of the applicant’s family.
Tribunal hearing – 31 January 2025
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 January 2025 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues in relation to the decision under review. The Tribunal conducted the hearing with an interpreter in the Lebanese Arabic and English languages.
The applicant requested that the Tribunal take evidence from his wife [Ms A], however the Tribunal decided that it was not necessary to take evidence from her after taking evidence from the applicant and listening to oral submissions presented by his representative. Neither the applicant nor his representative expressed any concern after the Tribunal indicated this to them.
The applicant gave in oral evidence to the Tribunal the following personal information about his life in Lebanon and since arriving in Australia:
i.He was born and raised in Beirut, but his ancestral village was [Village];
ii.He is Shia Muslim;
iii.He married his current wife [in] September 2020 and had previously been divorced;
iv.He lived in the [Building] on [Street] in [Beirut] and nowhere else when he was living in Lebanon;
v.His parents and six of his siblings currently live in an apartment in [City] and he has been in regular contact with them through voice and videocalls;
vi.He completed primary and high school in Beirut and then studied [Subject 2] for one year before withdrawing from his studies, he then studied English for a few months for the purposes of undertaking an IELTS test;
vii.He worked in Lebanon for approximately two and a half years in [Work sector], [doing job tasks 2];
viii.Before coming to Australia he had travelled to [Country] with his brother for the purposes of [a] procedure and had returned to Lebanon for approximately 30 days since 2013;
ix.He arrived in Australia on a student visa and completed an English language and [Subject 1];
x.He did approximately 15-20 hours a week of [job task 3] for [a job task 1] company during which time the owner of that business showed him how to use [job task 1 equipment], which led to the applicant establishing is own [job task 1] company in 2020 and has been his primary job since;
xi.He has [siblings] living in Australia as well as his wife and [child].
Claims of past events
The applicant told the Tribunal that he experienced no problems with authorities or anyone else when he lived in Lebanon and before he arrived in Australia at the age of [Age]. He said that he had lived with his parents and, as a teenager he had no responsibilities, until he started working as [an occupation 1] to earn some money and to meet famous [occupations 2 and 3].
The Tribunal raised particulars of the written statement that the applicant had provided with his protection visa application and invited him to clarify the content of the statement given that it appeared to be different to his evidence that he had not experienced any problems in Lebanon before leaving there. The applicant clarified that in approximately 2015, there were problems around the Lebanese-Israeli-Syrian tripoint border and around the Lebanese-Syrian border in the north of Lebanon. He said that after 2015, there were bombings because ISIS was inside Lebanon, that there were Syrians living in buildings everywhere and it was difficult for police to monitor them or others for potential harmful activity. He said that there was a car bomb explosion about six minutes from their house and his brother was riding a bike and was thrown off by the explosion. He added that there were numerous bombings during this time, creating an atmosphere of fear and this affected the Lebanese economy which was exacerbated by corruption in the country as well as ongoing conflict with Israel. It was difficult to access medicine, there was only electricity for 2-3 hours a day and limited food, which led to arguments, theft and people killing each other because many people (including teenagers) were carrying guns. The applicant confirmed that he witnessed these things while visiting Lebanon in approximately 2015 and that these problems continued after he left to return to Australia. The applicant also said that while visiting Lebanon in 2015 he was approached by people on the street asking him for money and wanting to sell him things.
The applicant told the Tribunal that his family home, the [Building], in [Beirut] had been destroyed [in] September 2024 as part of airstrikes by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and that his parents and siblings had to relocate to [City] where they had been living for approximately four and a half months at the time of the Tribunal hearing.
Claims of future harm
The applicant said that life would be hard and that it would be difficult to support his wife and child if he had to return to Lebanon.
The applicant claimed that that he and his family, as Shia Muslims, could be the inadvertent target of airstrikes by the IDF as part of its ongoing conflict targeting Hezbollah. The applicant confirmed that he was not a member or supporter of Hezbollah and otherwise did not hold any particular political views. He accepted that why the IDF was targeting Hezbollah rather than ordinary Lebanese citizens but claimed that in attacking Hezbollah, the IDF may kill or injure those near Hezbollah targets. He also claimed that he or his family may be harmed if they unknowingly speak with or live near a Hezbollah member who is a target of the IDF.
He applicant said that he feared being recruited by Hezbollah. He did not present any independent supporting evidence indicating that Hezbollah forcibly recruited individuals into its ranks, but said that they would ask and ask and if one refused to join, it was unclear what might happen.
The applicant said he also feared being recruited into the Lebanese Armed Forces which currently lacks soldiers because they have left their positions because they were not getting paid enough.
The applicant further claimed to fear harm from ISIS. When the Tribunal put to the applicant that it appeared that ISIS’ presence and influence in the region had diminished significantly in recent years, the applicant indicated that due to the recent downfall of the Asaad regime in Syria, there would be a new wave of Syrian refugees coming into Lebanon and it was unclear who was “good” and who was not.
The applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that he otherwise did not wish to make any further claims for protection.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has considered the copy of the applicant’s passport and the applicant’s evidence given at hearing on 31 January 2025 and finds that he is a Lebanese national. The Tribunal finds that Lebanon is the applicant’s country of nationality for the purposes of s 5H of the Act and the receiving country for the purposes of s 36(2)(b) of the Act.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s written claims, supporting documentary evidence and oral evidence given to the Tribunal at hearing on 31 January 2025. The Tribunal has had regard to relevant country information contained in the most recent DFAT Country Information Report on Lebanon dated 26 June 2023. The Tribunal has also considered written submissions and documentary evidence that his current representative has provided to the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s claims on . The Tribunal has also considered the country information provided by the applicant’s previously appointed representative.
When determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia, a decision maker is required to make findings of fact on the applicant’s claims that he or she is owed protection obligations. This process may involve an assessment of the credibility of the applicant and his or her other claims. When assessing credibility, a decision maker must be sensitive to the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers and should give the benefit of the doubt to those applicants who are generally credible, but are unable to substantiate all of their claims. However, a decision maker is not required to accept uncritically any and all allegations made by an applicant,[1] nor is it necessary for a decision maker to have rebutting evidence before he or she can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[2] Nor is a decision-maker required to accept claims which are inconsistent with the independent evidence regarding the situation in an applicant's country of nationality.[3]
[1] Randhawa v Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1993] FCA 592
[2] Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] 34 ALD 347
[3] Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62
It is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of their claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations (however arising) and the Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify or assist in specifying, any of the applicant’s claims, or to establish, assist in establishing, the applicant’s claims: s 5AAA. The Tribunal is not required to make an applicant’s case for him or her, but may ordinarily decide a review on what the applicant puts forward.[4]
Findings on applicant’s home region
[4] SZNWA v MIAC [2010] FCA 470 at [41]; SZLJK v MIAC [2008] FMCA 694 at [26].
Although the applicant gave evidence that he was born and lived his whole life in Beirut before coming to Australia, in light of the evidence he gave at hearing indicating that his family’s home in Beirut was destroyed in by IDF airstrikes in September 2024 forcing his family members there to relocate to [City], the Tribunal finds that [City] is the applicant’s home region and that this is where he would return to if he resumed living in Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future for the purposes of this decision.
Findings on past events
The Tribunal finds that before leaving Lebanon to come to Australia in 2013, the applicant did not experience any problems or harm from anyone, including Lebanese authorities, in Lebanon. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was living an ordinary life, working to support himself and to achieve his desire of meeting celebrity [occupations 2 and 3] by working as [an occupation 1] in Lebanon. The Tribunal bases this finding on the applicant’s oral evidence given that the Tribunal hearing on 31 January 2025.
The Tribunal accepts that around the time the applicant was back in Lebanon visiting family in approximately 2015, there were bombings in Shia neighbourhoods in Southern Beirut for which ISIS claimed responsibility and that this created a climate of fear, uncertainty and insecurity in Lebanon. This is corroborated by information in the relevant DFAT Report[5] and media reporting at the time[6]. The Tribunal has considered in greater detail below whether this would lead to the applicant being harmed if he were to return to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[5] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 18 December 2015 at paragraph 3.28 (accessed 7 March 2025)
[6] (accessed 7 March 2025)
The Tribunal is also prepared to accept that at that time in approximately 2015 there was economic uncertainty caused by, among other things, corruption which is reported to significantly affect Lebanon’s economic performance[7], and that this impacted access by citizens to basic necessities such as food, medicine and electricity, leading to disagreements between civilians which would occasionally escalate to physical harm or death. The Tribunal accepts that in this economic climate, the applicant would have been approached by strangers on the street asking for money and to sell things to him.
[7] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 18 December 2015 at paragraph 2.16 (accessed 7 March 2025).
The Tribunal accepts that in September 2028, the applicant’s family building was destroyed during IDF airstrikes targeting Hezbollah and that this forced his family to relocate to [City] where they have been renting an apartment.
Findings on claims of harm relating to IDF airstrikes
On 23 September 2024, the IDF began airstrikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah.[8] Hezbollah’s former Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah was killed on 28 September 2024 during these airstrikes.[9] These airstrikes primarily targeted Hezbollah facilities and Hezbollah members in southern Lebanon but also affected other regions throughout Lebanon, including the [Area] of southern Beirut, where the applicant previously resided, and where his family continued to reside after he left to come to Australia.[10] On 27 November 2024, a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah took effect.[11] Despite this ceasefire deal being reached, Israel continued sporadic strikes on Lebanon.[12] On 26 January 2025, this initial ceasefire deal ceased but was then extended to 18 February 2025.[13]
[8] Lebanon sees deadliest day since civil war as Israeli attacks kill 492 | Israel-Palestine conflict News | Al Jazeera (accessed 7 March 2025).
[9] Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah killed in Israeli strike | AP News (accessed 7 March 2025).
[10] Israel-Lebanon in maps: Tracking the conflict with Hezbollah and Iran (accessed 7 March 2025).
[11] Lebanon ceasefire: What we know about Israel-Hezbollah deal (accessed 7 March 2025).
[12] Here’s how Israel is repeatedly violating the Lebanon ceasefire | Israel attacks Lebanon News | Al Jazeera (accessed 7 March 2025).
[13] Lebanon ceasefire deal extended as initial deadline passes (accessed 7 March 2025).
While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s family in Lebanon have been personally affected by the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, having relocated to [City] after their family building was destroyed during IDF airstrikes in September 2024, the Tribunal must assess whether the applicant would be harmed if he returned to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future and, if so, whether that harm falls within the scope of the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion outlined in in s 36(2)(a) or (aa), respectively.
In considering this claim, the Tribunal has had regard to the information on the DFAT Smart Traveller website, and information contained in links provided by the applicant’s former representative in an Al Jazeera news article[14], the Human Rights Watch website[15], the Amnesty International website[16], and the UNHCR RefWorld website[17]. These links were provided as part of broad, generalised written submissions and did not meaningfully particularise how this online information related to the applicant’s personal circumstances or how or why he would be harmed if he returned to Lebanon. As such, the Tribunal has placed minimal weight on the former representative’s written submission and the information contained in the online links that she provided in assessing whether the applicant would be harmed if he returned to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[14] Lebanon president: Israel drone attack a declaration of war | News | Al Jazeera (accessed 7 March 2025).
[15] World Report 2018: Lebanon | Human Rights Watch and World Report 2019: Lebanon | Human Rights Watch (accessed 7 March 2025).
[16] Human rights in Lebanon Amnesty International (accessed 7 March 2025).
[17] Search | Refworld (accessed 7 March 2025).
Although IDF airstrikes on Lebanon have led to the deaths and displacement of many Lebanese citizens since September 2024, including the applicant’s family members, country information at the time of the Tribunal hearing indicated that a ceasefire had been agreed between Israel and Hezbollah. When the Tribunal raised this information with the applicant at hearing, he said that despite the ceasefire Israel had continued its airstrikes and would not leave Lebanon. Although Israel continued its airstrikes during the ceasefire period, these strikes were largely confined to the southern Lebanon region and a small number of isolated strikes in eastern and northern Lebanon. There had been no airstrikes in or around [City], where the Tribunal has found that applicant would return to if he was to resume living in Lebanon.[18] Although the possibility remains that hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah could once again escalate and lead to resumed airstrikes by Israel which may possibly target the [City] area, the Tribunal considers this to be speculative having regard to media reporting and the country information about the areas and regions that Israel has targeted since September 2024. As such, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that the applicant would be harmed by IDF airstrikes on Hezbollah or other targets in Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Findings on claims of harm in connection with Hezbollah
[18] Lebanon-Israel Border Clashes - Google My Maps (accessed 7 March 2025).
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim to fear harm on the basis of being recruited by Hezbollah.
The applicant presented no independent evidence that Hezbollah forcibly recruit individuals into its ranks. When the Tribunal discussed this with him at hearing, he simply said that it was unclear what might happen if one repeatedly refused to join Hezbollah if asked by them. The Tribunal has considered this evidence as part of the applicant’s broader claim, however it finds that his inability to particularise what might happen if he refused to join Hezbollah if he was repeatedly asked to do so indicates that his claim is speculative in nature. On the evidence available to it, the Tribunal does not accept that Hezbollah would forcibly recruit the applicant into its ranks particularly he does not support them or otherwise hold any other political opinion. As such, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that he would experience harm in Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future on this basis.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claim that he may be harmed or killed on the basis of unknowingly interacting with, living in proximity to, or working for Hezbollah members who may be targeted by the IDF or ISIS. It is possible that the applicant, as a Shia Muslim, and living in predominantly Shia neighbourhoods or communities in Lebanon may live among Hezbollah members or associates if he returned to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, there is now a ceasefire in place between Israel and Hezbollah, a de-escalation in conflict between those parties since late 2024 and decreased targeting of Hezbollah by the IDF beyond the southern Lebanon region. In addition to this, ISIS-related attacks in Lebanon have diminished considerably since 2017 when many of their militants left Lebanon.[19] In light of this country information, the Tribunal considers the chance of the applicant being harmed or killed on the basis of unknowingly interacting with, living in proximity to, or working for a Hezbollah member or associate in Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future to be speculative or otherwise remote. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that the applicant would be killed or otherwise harmed in the reasonably foreseeable future on this basis.
Findings on claims of being recruited into the Lebanese Armed Forces
[19] Lebanon’s campaign against ISIS declared successful | CNN (accessed 10 March 2025).
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims to fear harm on the basis of being forcibly recruited into the Lebanese Armed Forces.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant at hearing country information that indicated that conscription had been abolished in Lebanon in 2007.[20] The applicant said that there was a current shortage of military personnel in Lebanon due to soldiers abandoning their service and taking up other work because of the devaluation of the Lebanese pound, meaning that their military income is now insufficient, which was consistent with information contained in the most recent DFAT Country Information Report on Lebanon.[21] The applicant claimed that as a result of these military personnel shortages, Lebanese conscription laws may change in the future. While this had been raised and discussed by Lebanese authorities in 2020[22], as at the time of the Tribunal hearing and this decision, there was no independent country information indicating that mandatory military service or conscription would be reinstated in Lebanon. As such, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that the applicant would be recruited into the Lebanese Armed Forces if he returned to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Findings on claims of harm by ISIS in Lebanon
[20] Lebanon scraps military service | News | Al Jazeera (accessed 10 March 2025).
[21] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 26 June 2023 at paragraph 5.5 (accessed 10 March 2025).
[22] The Lebanese Government is right about mandatory (military) service – Arab Barometer (accessed 10 March 2025).
In light of independent country information, the Tribunal accepts that ISIS claimed responsibility for bombings which have variously targeted Shia and Christian neighbourhoods in different parts of Lebanon in approximately 2014 and 2015. However, in light of country information, Tribunal finds that the influence and presence of ISIS in Lebanon diminished significantly from around 2017 when the Lebanese Armed Forces, supported by Hezbollah and the Syrian Army, launched a military campaign to drive ISIS militants out of the Lebanese-Syrian border region.[23] When the Tribunal indicated to the applicant that ISIS influence and presence had diminished in recent years, the applicant said that with the recent collapse of the Asaad regime in Syria in December 2024, ISIS militants would again enter Lebanon from Syria due to Israel’s presence there. He also said that the collapse of the Assad regime would further trigger a new influx of Syrian refugees and that it was possible that ISIS militants may enter Lebanon as a result among those refugees.
[23] Islamic State leaves Syria-Lebanon border zone | Reuters (accessed 10 March 2025); Qalamoun Offensive in Lebanon (accessed 10 March 2025); and The Lebanese Armed Forces and Hezbollah’s Competing Summer Offensives Against Sunni Militants - Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (accessed 10 March 2025).
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence in respect of the threat posed by ISIS towards Lebanon at the time of hearing and at the time of decision, but considers his views speculative. Although the most recent DFAT Report on Lebanon indicated that the security situation in Lebanon continues to be shaped by uncertainty due to, among other factors, terrorist threats from internal and external actors[24], the Tribunal considers this to be broad and unspecific and there is no further detailed discussion of any threat specifically posed by ISIS at the time the report was published in 2023. The applicant did not present further independent and contemporaneous country information indicating that ISIS continued to pose a genuine threat to Lebanese citizens in 2025. As such, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that the applicant as a Shia Muslim would be killed or otherwise targeted and harmed by ISIS if he returned to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Findings on claims of economic hardship
[24] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 26 June 2023 at paragraph 2.31 (accessed 10 March 2025).
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim that he and his family would experience economic hardship if he returned to Lebanon.
The Tribunal accepts that Lebanon’s economy is experiencing severe depression, exacerbated by the 2020 Beirut port blast, and that his has led to unpredictable supply of medicine, food and fuel.[25] The Tribunal also accepts that recent IDF airstrikes have caused the displacement of Lebanese citizens who have lost their homes, including the applicant’s family.
[25] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 26 June 2023 at paragraph 2.9 (accessed 10 March 2025).
The Tribunal finds, however, that the effects of Lebanon’s economic depression do not constitute systematic and discriminatory conduct as required by s 5J(4)(c), and that it is otherwise a risk faced by the population of Lebanon generally and not by the applicant personally.
The applicant said that although his family in Lebanon was residing in an apartment in [City], they would need to find new accommodation in the near future as the landlord wanted to take back possession of the apartment. The applicant claimed that it would be difficult for them to secure alternative accommodation as a Shia Muslim family as potential landlords may impute Hezbollah connections or sympathies to them and view them as risky tenants in that they may be the inadvertent target of an IDF airstrike, which could lead to the destruction of the landlord’s property. While the Tribunal accepts that some landlords may think this way and that the applicant and his family may encounter some challenges in securing new housing, the fact that the applicant’s family were able to recently do so in [City] at such short notice after the destruction of their family building in southern Beirut indicates that it is possible for Shia Muslims to find accommodation despite the conflict between the IDF and Hezbollah. In addition to this, the fact that a ceasefire between the IDF and Hezbollah continues to hold and that the IDF’s targeting of Hezbollah has been largely confined to southern Lebanon indicates that it is less likely now that landlords would view Shia Muslims tenants as potentially risky. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his family would be unable to secure any form of accommodation whatsoever. The Tribunal otherwise finds that any challenges that they may encounter in securing accommodation in Lebanon would not amount to serious harm as contemplated by s 5J(4)(b) and (5), or significant harm as set out in s 5 and s 36(2A).
Other claims

The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s broad claims that he will suffer from psychological harm if he were to return to Lebanon on the basis of conflict there as well as separation from his family in Australia. In this respect, the applicant confirmed at hearing that he was not experiencing any physical or mental health conditions and was otherwise not taking any medication for any medical conditions.
While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant would experience anxiety and worry due to the uncertainty of his circumstances if he were to return to Lebanon, the Tribunal find that this would not amount to systematic or discriminatory conduct as required by s 5J(4)(c), and would otherwise not amount to significant harm as set out in s 5 and s 36(2A) as it would not amount to the imposition of the death penalty or the applicant being arbitrarily deprived of his life, nor would it involve an act or omission intended to inflict severe pain or suffering or that causes or intends to cause extreme humiliation which is unreasonable.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims that he would be harmed on the basis of his mental health, that Lebanese authorities would pick on him because he is a simple person, and that people would be discriminatory and unjust. Once again, the Tribunal notes that the applicant confirmed at hearing that he was not experiencing any physical or mental health conditions and was otherwise not taking any medication for any medical conditions. As such the Tribunal does not accept that he would be harmed on the basis of his mental health or for being a simple person by any groups or individuals, including Lebanese authorities. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk that he would be harmed on these bases if he returned to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claim that the entirety of Lebanon is unsafe and violence can strike at any time with street violence in some areas. Although country information indicates relatively low-level and localised violence occurs between communal groups in Lebanon[26], the applicant did not expand on this claim at hearing or give any evidence indicating that he or his family were of adverse interest to any groups or individuals in Lebanon. As such, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s claim about violence, including street violence, striking at any time in some areas of Lebanon to be speculative. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance or real risk of the applicant being harmed on this basis if he were to return to Lebanon in the reasonably foreseeable future, even accounting for the increased economic challenges currently present there.
Refugee criterion
[26] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon, 26 June 2023 at paragraph 2.34 (accessed 10 March 2025).
Having regard to the findings of fact above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning set out in s 5J. As such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning set out in s 5H. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection criterion
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).
Having regard to the findings of fact set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
REFERRAL TO MINISTER FOR INTERVENTION
Although the Tribunal has affirmed the decision under review, it has decided to refer this matter to the Minister to consider substituting a more favourable decision for the applicant.
The Tribunal has decided to refer the matter on the basis that the applicant is now married to an Australian citizen and has an Australian citizen child but cannot apply for a partner visa onshore as he has already had an onshore partner visa application refused. In addition to this, he has established a small [job task 1] business which employs a number of Australian citizens. While it would be possible for the applicant to continue to run this business to some degree even if he were required to go offshore, the Tribunal considers that having to go offshore to apply for a partner visa or some other visa and the associated uncertainty would have adverse impact on his Australian citizen wife and child. Medical evidence indicates that the applicant’s wife has experienced a miscarriage due to stress and anxiety associated with the uncertainty of the applicant’s migration status and which was heightened due to recent conflict between the IDF and Hezbollah, the destruction of the applicant’s family home in Southern Beirut and the relocation of his family as a result.
The Tribunal refers the matter to the Minister on the basis that there are strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to the applicant’s Australian citizen wife and child.
Hearing date: 31 January 2025
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.
…