1930190 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 603

1930190 (Refugee) [2024] ARTA 603 (6 November 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative:  Mr Sam Issa
Respondent:  Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1930190

Tribunal:General Member S Durvasula
Date:6 November 2024

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

Statement made on 6 November 2024 at 3.35pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – particular social group – abused women – divorced women – access to mental health treatment – family violence allegations – physical assault – fear of forced marriage – economic crisis in Lebanon – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Lebanon applied for the visa on 4 April 2017. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 October 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.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
BACKGROUND
Evidence before the Department
The applicant is [an age]-year-old national of Lebanon who was born in [Village 1], Akkar District, North Lebanon (about [distance] west of Tripoli).
In her protection visa application, the applicant provides the following background information:
·     She is not married.
·     Her religion is Sunni Muslim.
·     Her parents, [and specified family members] live in Lebanon.
·     She has [specified family members] who are Australian citizens living in Australia.
·     She arrived in Australia [in] February 2017 on a tourist visa.
·     In Lebanon, she lived at the same address in [Village 1] from her birth until she departed for Australia in February 2017.
·     She completed approximately [number] years of schooling in [specified year]. She then completed a course in [subject 1] at [College 1].
·     She does not list any employment history.
Protection visa claims
In a statutory declaration provided with the visa application dated 3 April 2017, the applicant sets out her protection visa claims as follows:
·     She claims persecution on the basis of membership of a particular social group – abused women. She also relies on complementary protection.
·     She has [number] sisters who all had arranged marriages.
·     She is [age] years old and is considered advanced age for marriage. Her parents have been putting pressure on her to get married. They consider that she is bringing shame on them by remaining single.
·     She suffers from depression and anxiety. As a result of her illness, she is not ready mentally and physically to get married.
·     Her family does not understand her condition and it is regarded as shameful for the parents to have a daughter with mental health issues.
·     She fears being denied adequate mental health treatment and being pressured into a marriage which will further exacerbate her health.
The applicant also provided a report from a psychologist, [Psychologist A], dated 19 July 2019.
The applicant was interviewed by the delegate on 23 July 2019. The Tribunal has listened to a copy of the recording.
Evidence before the Tribunal
In a statutory declaration to the Tribunal, dated 30 November 2023, the applicant provides the following additional information:
·     While in Lebanon she received treatment for depressive symptoms from a psychiatrist in Tripoli. She discontinued the antidepressant medication she was prescribed due to numerous side effects which included, weight gain, brain fog and chronic tiredness.
·     In Australia she had been receiving treatment from a general practitioner and consulted a psychologist. She did not pursue further mental health treatment due to the restrictive costs. She felt the counselling sessions did not impact positively on her mental health.
·     In Australia, her brother introduced her to her now ex-husband, [Husband A], who is an Australian citizen. She felt pressured by her brothers to get married to him. Initially, she did not want to marry him because she did not feel anything towards him. However, he came across as being a kind person and she hoped he would make her happy and they would have a family together. The applicant married [Husband A] [in] February 2021. A marriage certificate was provided to the Tribunal.
·     A few weeks after her marriage, [Husband A] subjected her to verbal and financial abuse. He did not physically harm her as she threatened to contact the police. They tried to have children through IVF but it was unsuccessful.
·     The applicant’s family were aware of the abuse but did not support a separation. Her brothers insisted that she stay with [Husband A] and blamed her for not being able to start a family.
·     Her marriage to [Husband A] ended in February 2023 and the applicant left the home. She travelled to Melbourne to stay with one of her brothers, [Brother A]. He advised her to return to her husband. She then returned to Sydney to stay with her sister, [Sister A].
·     The applicant fears that if she returns to Lebanon, she will be harmed by her father, brothers and uncles because of her separation and intended divorce. They have threatened her on several occasions, stating that if she does not return to her husband, they will physically harm her.
Tribunal hearing
At the hearing, the applicant stated that when in Lebanon, she lived with her parents and her [specified siblings] in the family home in [Village 1]. She did not live anywhere else. [Village 1] is a small town in the mountains. Currently, her older brother, [Brother B], lives with her parents. Her older brother, [Brother C], lives in the same building on a different floor. Her [sisters] are all married and live separately with their husbands in Lebanon. The applicant is in regular contact with her mother, but not her brothers or her father.
In Australia, the applicant has [specified siblings] who live in either Sydney or Melbourne [including Sister B] who lives in Sydney. The applicant currently lives with [Sister B].
Her sister, [Sister B], got divorced about 2 or 3 years ago. She went back to Lebanon to marry a man of her choice. Initially, the families did not agree as [Sister B’s] prospective husband came from outside of the village. At the last minute, they agreed to the marriage. [Sister B] got married and came back to Australia with her husband.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant, its concerns that her sister [Sister B] got divorced and remarried a person her family had initially objected to, but had not been harmed by them. The applicant stated that her sister does not have the same lifestyle; she was upset when she came back from Lebanon but she did not give details and the applicant does not know what happened to her.
The applicant stated she completed high school and then went on to complete a [subject 1] course in Tripoli (the same course listed in her application). She used to travel to Tripoli by herself on the bus. It took several hours to travel there and back. The college was a mixed college with men and women. Her parents did not object to her studying there but did not approve of her staying in the dormitories on campus. The applicant eventually stopped the study as the travel time was too onerous. She did not work in Lebanon as her father would not allow her to work where other men were present. She did not have much social life in Lebanon outside her family. She sometimes attended a place to exercise, which was managed by a husband and wife.
In Australia, the applicant has studied several courses at specified colleges]. She is currently doing [an] apprenticeship. She has worked part time in a [business] for 2 years.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether her parents introduced her to prospective marriage partners in Lebanon. She remembers one occasion when she was 15 or 16 years old. A man came to the house and the applicant stayed in her room and did not meet him. Her mother objected to the marriage as the applicant was too young. If someone came to the house, the applicant would refuse to meet them as they were generally uneducated. Her parents did not actually force her to meet any prospective marriage partners and were not actively looking for partners for her. They mostly talked about her getting married, but no other arrangements took place. After she got sick with depression and anxiety, no-one came to ask about marriage and nothing further happened.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that her family did not appear to be overly strict and had not forced her into marriage when she lived in Lebanon and was under [age] years. In these circumstances, the Tribunal may have concerns that she would not be forced into marriage if she returned to Lebanon, particularly now that she was [age] years old. Her family had let her obtain an education, attend a mixed college and travel to Tripoli by herself. They had let her come to Australia and did not actively arrange a marriage for her when she was in Lebanon. The applicant stated that she rejected this and claimed she will be beaten and will not be able to leave the house as a divorced woman. She was not allowed to leave the house except to study.
In relation to her marriage to [Husband A], her sister [Sister A] introduced them. It was not arranged by her family. The applicant was reluctant to marry him, but she felt she should as she did not want to live by herself and she needed the financial support. The Tribunal put to the applicant that she had lived with her family before and after her marriage and they appeared to be financially supporting her. The applicant stated that she did not always feel comfortable living with her sister. She agreed that after her marriage ended, her sister’s husband agreed she could live with them.
The divorce with [Husband A] has now been finalised and a decree nisi has been issued. After the hearing, the applicant provided evidence that the decree nisi had been issued by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia [in] October 2024.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant, the claims in her statutory declaration of
30 November 2023 that initially she did not want to marry [Husband A] because she did not feel anything towards him. However, he came across as being a kind person and she hoped he would make her happy and they would have a family together. This statement did not appear to indicate that she had been forced into marrying [Husband A]. The applicant stated that she got into the marriage because she did not have any other choice.
When asked why she came to Australia, the applicant stated that she was feeling depressed so her mother spoke to her brother, [Brother D], in Australia and asked him to arrange a tourist visa for her. She had just intended to come as a visitor and wanted to return to Lebanon. She was stressed by living with [Brother D] and at the time of the Departmental interview in 2019, had wanted to return to Lebanon.
When asked why she did not want to return to Lebanon and what she feared would happen to her, the applicant stated that she feared she would be pushed into a forced marriage and would be forced to live with someone against her will. She fears that her father and her brothers would beat her as she is now a divorced woman who left her marriage.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about her claims that she was beaten by her father and brothers in the past, noting that she has not mentioned this in her protection visa application. The applicant claimed that her father used to beat her mother and used to beat ‘us’ a lot with a stick when they were children – when she was about 10 years old. She worries that her father, her brother, [Brother B], and her uncles will beat her again as she is now a divorced woman and she left her marriage.
The Tribunal asked if any of her family currently living in Lebanon had ever beaten her as an adult. The applicant spoke at length about how her brother in Australia, [Brother D], had beaten her once and had hit her other sister. She stated that her brother [Brother A] (now in Australia), had beaten her for taking a trip on her own to Tripoli for dental treatment. The Tribunal asked her why he would have beaten her for this, when she was travelling to Tripoli every day by bus for college. The applicant then explained that this happened well before she started attending college.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that most of her claims of past harm were from family members who currently live in Australia – namely her brother [Brother A] and her brother [Brother D]. There did not seem to be any recent threats from family members in Lebanon. The applicant stated she does not talk to her brothers as they have made her suffer in the past.
The Tribunal noted the statement in the applicant’s statutory declaration dated 30 November 2023, that her brothers, father and uncles have threatened her on several occasions that if she does not return to her husband they will physically harm her. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain this further. The applicant stated that she only speaks to her mother; she does not speak to her father or brothers. When asked how she knew about the claimed threats, she stated that her brother [Brother B] told her over the phone that she could not get a divorce. Her family eventually agreed to her getting a divorce because her ex-husband was not financially supporting her. She later stated that no-one agreed she should get a divorce; only her sister in Australia, [Sister A], supported her to get a divorce. The Tribunal put to the applicant that her family members merely disagreeing with her divorce may not constitute a threat of harm. The applicant responded that she does not talk to her brothers as they make her suffer.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that independent country information indicated that divorce rates in Lebanon are increasing; Sunni Muslims have the highest divorce rates in the country; that the largest number of divorces occur in the Akkar area in North Lebanon where the applicant is from; and that people do remarry.[1] This may indicate that the applicant would not face serious or significant harm due to her divorced status if she returned to Lebanon. The applicant responded that in her family and her village, divorce is not common and it is not an easy situation. Her sister, [Sister C], is not allowed to divorce even though she is having trouble in her marriage. The applicant acknowledged that [Sister C] has children, unlike the applicant, and it is harder for her to get a divorce.
[1] For example, 2017 saw a 22.5 per cent increase in divorce rates across the country to a total of over 8,500 for the year - see ‘Divorce rates in Lebanon on the rise’, The Monthly, 20 June 2018, (CISNET reference CXBB8A1DA37596); ‘Acceptability of Civil Marriage in a Multidenominational Society: Results of an Empirical Survey in Lebanon’, Haykal, R. G., Economic Research Forum, 1 November 2014, p 6 (CISNET reference CISEFCB23F7667)
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she had received treatment for a mental health condition in Lebanon, noting her earlier written statements and evidence at the Departmental interview that she had received treatment from a psychologist in Tripoli at the end of 2016. The applicant stated that her family initially tried to get her to see several Sheiks/religious clerics. In Tripoli she went to a man who was also a psychologist/psychiatrist and a Sheikh. He gave her antidepressant medication which she stopped after 2 months due to the side effects. Her brother [Brother A] and [a sister] arranged for the appointment as she had been screaming and crying a lot.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it appeared that she had not been denied treatment for a mental health condition in Lebanon. The treatment was available and she was able to access it. Her family seemed supportive of her receiving treatment and had arranged it for her. The applicant responded that she did not see an appropriate therapist, the medication was not effective and it did not change her situation.
In Australia, the applicant saw a psychologist 2 or 3 times in 2019. She did not continue with treatment as she could not afford to pay him. She also found the counselling ineffective. She did not consult her general practitioner about obtaining a mental health treatment plan. She has only seen her GP for physical conditions. She is currently not receiving any treatment and is not on any medication for a mental health condition.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant its concerns that there appeared to be limited medical evidence that the applicant has a mental health condition for which she requires treatment if she returns to Lebanon. The psychologist report from 2019, is now over 5 years old, and appears to be based on her self-reporting rather than an independent diagnosis. As the applicant has not been accessing treatment for a mental health condition in Australia, the Tribunal may have concerns that she would not need to access treatment in Lebanon. The applicant again stated that she does not have money to access treatment in Australia and she has more rights in Australia than in Lebanon.
When asked if she feared harm for any other reason, the applicant mentioned the general poor economic situation in the country, the lack of work and nutrition, general instability and shootings and the current war with Israel.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant her claims to fear harm due to the economic situation, general living conditions and the security situation in Lebanon, and that there may not be a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm. Regarding the complementary protection provisions, the risks may be those faced by the population generally. The applicant responded that three-quarters of the population of Lebanon had left because of the problems and she understood that places near Tripoli had been bombed and the whole country was in danger.
The applicant’s representative made oral submissions as follows:
·     The applicant has experienced mental health issues due to past beatings from her father and brother, living in a restrictive environment and being unable to work.
·     There is stigma associated with mental health conditions in Lebanon. For example, her family took her to seek a Sheikh instead of a qualified person.
·     Due to financial constraints she has been unable to continue with medical care in Australia.
·     The applicant’s family was against her divorce and wanted her to remain in the marriage. The applicant decided to get a divorce despite her family’s wishes.
·     She was beaten by her brother, [Brother A], who lives in Melbourne and the same thing would happen to her if she returned to Lebanon. There is a stigma associated with divorced women and the applicant’s act of disobedience will trigger them into mistreating her.
·     The applicant is not aware of what happened to her sister [Sister B] after she remarried. [Sister B] may have experienced harm because of her divorce and second marriage, but it is unknown.
·     The applicant cannot live alone as there is a stigma associated with a single woman living by themselves. She may not be able to find work due to her mental health issues. The current conflict in Lebanon may impact on her ability to relocate within Lebanon.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issues in this case are whether there is a real chance, if the applicant returns to Lebanon, that she would be persecuted for one or more of the following reasons: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. If not, the Tribunal must decide whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of nationality
The applicant has provided a copy of her passport to the Department and Tribunal, which shows she is a citizen of Lebanon. The Tribunal finds, based on the applicant’s passport, that she is a national of Lebanon. The Tribunal finds that Lebanon is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing her claims for protection under the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.
Summary of applicant’s claims
The applicant claims that she cannot return to Lebanon and fears harm for the following reasons:
·     She claims she has a mental health condition and will not receive adequate treatment for this condition in Lebanon. She claims she will also face stigma as a person with a mental health condition.
·     She fears that her family will force her to marry someone she does not want to marry.
·     She fears harm from her father, brother and uncle in Lebanon as she divorced her previous husband. She claims they will beat her, as she was subject to beatings from her father and brothers in the past.
·     She claims she will experience social stigma as a divorced woman.
·     She does not want to return to Lebanon due to the economic crisis and the volatile security situation.
The Tribunal has considered each of these claims individually and cumulatively.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
Claimed harm due to mental health condition
The applicant claims she has a mental health condition and will experience harm if she returns to Lebanon as she will not receive adequate treatment for this condition and will face stigma from family and the broader community.
Based on the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant received some treatment for a mental health condition in Lebanon and was prescribed antidepressant medication for a short period at the end of 2016. The Tribunal accepts that she did not continue with this treatment due to the side effects.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that her family made her see an unqualified person for her mental health treatment. Based on her own evidence at the hearing, she saw a psychologist or psychiatrist in Tripoli, whom she also believes was a Sheikh. In her statutory declaration dated 30 November 2023, she also states she saw a psychiatrist in Tripoli and she repeated this claim at the Departmental interview (which was referred to in the delegate’s decision record).
Based on this evidence, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that she was denied treatment for a mental health condition in Lebanon. As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the treatment was available to her and her family helped her to obtain it. While the applicant did not necessarily consider the treatment to be effective, she was still able to access it without difficulty.
Turning to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal has considered whether the applicant has a current mental health condition which will require treatment if she returns to Lebanon.
The Tribunal has no current evidence regarding the applicant’s mental health condition. The most recent evidence is a report from [Psychologist A], dated 19 July 2019. This states that the applicant ‘has a long history of depression, anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)’. The Tribunal has significant concerns about [this] report. These concerns, which are set out below, were raised by the delegate in their decision record and were also discussed with the applicant at the hearing.
First, [Psychologist A] appears to have based his assessment on an interview with the applicant and the administration of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS), which he states is a self-reporting instrument. There is no indication that he undertook independent clinical testing before providing an opinion about the applicant’s condition.
Second, [Psychologist A] based his assessment after seeing the applicant only 2 or 3 times over a short period of time, rather than over a lengthy period of assessment.
Third, [Psychologist A] relies on the history of claimed harm as recounted by the applicant and the reasons for her symptoms, and accepts this at face value, without any independent analysis. In the first part of the report, he sets out and repeats the applicant’s protection claims, as recounted by her. He also speculates about the future harm the applicant may experience if she returns to Lebanon. In his conclusion, he states, ‘it is strongly advised that you consider the above report in your decision regarding the status of [the applicant’s] application for a Protection visa’. The Tribunal considers he has taken on the role of an advocate in making submissions on why the applicant should be granted protection in Australia. The Tribunal considers that he has stepped outside his role as a psychologist making an independent assessment of the applicant’s mental health status, and his report lacks impartiality.
Fourth, some of [Psychologist A’s] observations are inconsistent with the applicant’s own evidence at the hearing. He states that the applicant ‘was unable to travel to local places such as school and shopping markets alone unless chaperoned’. This is inconsistent with the applicant’s own evidence that she travelled independently to Tripoli to attend college for 3 years and attended a place outside the home for exercise.
Fifth, the Tribunal has concerns about the timing of the applicant’s visit to the psychologist. Despite arriving in Australia in 2017 and claiming to have experienced symptoms of depression and anxiety due to events in Lebanon, the applicant did not consult a psychologist until 2 years later, close to her Departmental interview date. This raises concerns that the applicant consulted a psychologist and provided a report for the purpose of strengthening her claims for protection, and not because she has a mental health condition which required treatment.
Finally, as discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the report is now over 5 years old and there is no recent evidence before the Tribunal regarding the applicant’s current mental health condition. Without more recent evidence, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has a current mental health condition which would require treatment if she returns to Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have been concerned about the cost of seeing a psychologist in Australia. However, she also gave evidence that she previously discontinued medication due to the side effects and she discontinued counselling because she did not find it to be effective. She has not sought treatment for a mental health condition through her general practitioner. She gave evidence that she has been able to find work and complete courses in English, [and vocational subjects] while she has been in Australia. She has not actively sought treatment for a mental health condition. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant currently has a mental health condition which impacts on her ability to function and which requires treatment.
In summary, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a current mental health condition that would require treatment in the reasonably foreseeable future if she returned to Lebanon. Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant would face harm if she returned to Lebanon due to being denied mental health treatment. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant would face harm due to stigma from family or the broader community due to having a mental health condition.
The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant will experience stigma or other harm from family or the broader community due to having received treatment for a past mental health condition. The applicant has not been living in Lebanon for the past 7 years. Since she has been in Australia she has managed to study and work and function in society. Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant will face harm if she returns to Lebanon, due to any past mental health condition.
Claimed harm due to forced marriage
The applicant claims that if she returns to Lebanon, she will be forced to marry someone she does not wish to marry.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s past history with her family in Lebanon. Based on the applicant’s evidence at hearing, the Tribunal does not accept that her family tried to force her into marriage when she lived in Lebanon. Her own evidence was that there were very limited occasions when her parents tried to introduce her to prospective marriage partners. There was discussion, but no other concrete arrangements took place. She could only recall one occasion when someone came to the house, but she did not meet him and her mother did not agree to the marriage as the applicant was then under-age. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s parents and family members did not try to force her into marriage when she lived in Lebanon.
In relation to the applicant’s marriage to [Husband A], the Tribunal does not accept this was a forced marriage arranged by her family. He was not known to her family in Lebanon and he was introduced by her sister in Australia. The applicant chose to marry him as she did not want to live alone and needed the financial support. The Tribunal does not accept that these circumstances constitute a ‘forced marriage’.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant would be forced into a marriage against her will if she returned to Lebanon. The applicant came to Australia when she was [age] years old. The Tribunal has found the applicant’s family did not try to force her into a marriage in Lebanon when she was younger. The applicant is now [age] years old, has been married and is now divorced. The applicant claims her parents were very strict and come from a conservative family. Despite this, they allowed her to study in Tripoli for 3 years in a mixed college and travel there independently by bus. They also allowed her to travel to Australia. Given these circumstances, and the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be forced into marriage if she returns to Lebanon and will face harm for this reason.
Claimed harm due to being divorced
The applicant claims to fear harm from her father, brother and uncle in Lebanon as she divorced her husband. She claims they will beat her and that she was subject to beatings from her father and brothers in the past. In her statutory declaration of 30 November 2023, she also states she will be subject to honour killings.
The Tribunal has considered the independent country information regarding divorced women in Lebanon. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is some stigma attached to divorce and divorced women in Lebanon. The Tribunal has also had regard to DFAT’s assessment that women in Lebanon face a moderate risk of family and sexual violence and this risk increases for members of vulnerable communities. DFAT reports that ‘honour killings’ of women do occur, but are not common.[2] Against this information, the Tribunal has considered other information which indicates that divorce rates in Lebanon have been climbing, with Sunni Muslims having the highest divorce rates in the country. The largest number of divorces occurred in the North Lebanon province, which includes the Akkar governorate, where the applicant is from. [3] A report on civil status laws in Lebanon stated that divorce was highest for Sunnis amongst all religious groups in Lebanon, with a survey showing 10 per cent of Sunnis responding were divorced, with a further 9 per cent having remarried.[4]
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon (26 June 2023) at 3.61 and 3.62.
[3] For example, 2017 saw a 22.5 per cent increase in divorce rates across the country to a total of over 8,500 for the year - see ‘Divorce rates in Lebanon on the rise’, The Monthly, 20 June 2018, (CISNET reference CXBB8A1DA37596)
[4] ‘Acceptability of Civil Marriage in a Multidenominational Society: Results of an Empirical Survey in Lebanon’, Haykal, R. G., Economic Research Forum, 1 November 2014, p 6 (CISNET reference CISEFCB23F7667)
In light of this information, The Tribunal must also assess the applicant’s individual circumstances. The applicant has claimed that her father used to beat her and her siblings when they were children, when she was about 10 years old. Even if the Tribunal were to accept that this occurred, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was beaten or otherwise abused as an adult, by any of her family members who currently live in Lebanon. At the hearing, the applicant was unable to provide any details about claims of past harm when she was an adult, from her father, brothers or uncle who currently live in Lebanon. When asked for more information, she only referred to being beaten by her brothers [Brother D] and [Brother A] while in Australia. The Tribunal is unable to consider the harm the applicant has experienced in Australia as it must consider whether the applicant faces s a real chance of persecution in her receiving country, which is Lebanon.
The applicant has not claimed that her father, brothers or uncles in Lebanon have threatened to harm her because she got a divorce. She has only stated that her brother, [Brother B], said to her over the phone that she should not get a divorce and her family disagreed with her decision. In fact, she has limited contact with them and only talks to her mother. The Tribunal does not accept that mere disagreement or a difference of opinion with a family member constitutes serious or significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept that any of the applicant’s male family members would seek to harm her in the reasonably foreseeable future if she returned to Lebanon.
The Tribunal has also considered the fact that the applicant’s sister, [Sister B], obtained a divorce and remarried someone in Lebanon that her family did not initially approve of. The applicant and her representative have speculated that [Sister B] was harmed by the applicant’s family as a result of these actions, but the Tribunal has no evidence to support this claim. The applicant’s own evidence was that she did not speak to [Sister B] about the details of her second marriage in Lebanon. Her family eventually agreed to the marriage and [Sister B] returned to Australia with her husband. The applicant stated that her family has objected to her [Sister C] obtaining a divorce despite having trouble in her marriage. However, the applicant also acknowledged that [Sister C’s] circumstances are different to her own as she has children and divorce is more difficult. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s family accepted [Sister B’s] divorce and remarriage, which further demonstrates that they are not as strict as the applicant claims, and would not seek to harm the applicant due to her divorce.
Having regard to the evidence and findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s family members would harm the applicant because she obtained a divorce in Australia. While the applicant may experience some social stigma in Lebanon due to being a divorced woman, the Tribunal does not accept that this stigma constituted serious harm for the purpose of s 5J(5) of the Act.
Noting that what constitutes serious harm is not limited to the examples in s 5J(5), the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant fears serious harm, having considered the evidence as a whole. As stated above, the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s family have been reasonably supportive and caring towards her by allowing her to study in Tripoli for 3 years in a mixed college and travel there independently by bus, facilitating her travel to Australia and facilitating treatment for a past mental health condition. There is also a history of divorce in the family, due to her sister [Sister B] obtaining a divorce and re-marrying a person of her choice.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance the applicant will face harm if she returns to Lebanon for reasons of her divorce.
Claim to fear harm due to being an abused woman

In her protection visa application, the applicant claims persecution on the basis of belonging to a particular social group, being abused women. The Tribunal has accepted above that the applicant may have experienced some beatings from her father when she was a child. The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant would be abused by her father or any other male family members in the reasonably foreseeable future, if she returned to Lebanon.
Under s 5J of the Act, a person’s fear of persecution must be for reasons of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (s 5J(1)(a)). One or more of these reasons must be the essential and significant reason or reasons for the persecution (s 5J(4)(a)), which must also involve systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 5J(4)(c)).
Under s 5L(d) of the Act, a particular social group cannot be defined by reference to the persecution suffered. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s membership of any particular social group, including women in Lebanon, single or divorced women in Lebanon, a person with a past mental health condition in Lebanon, or any combination of these groups, or any other particular social group arising on the face of the evidence, would be the essential and significant reason for any of the harm the applicant claims.
Claim to fear harm due to economic crisis
The applicant claims she cannot return to Lebanon due to the economic crisis as there is a lack of work and nutrition and general instability. There is no dispute that Lebanon continues to experience a severe economic crisis.[5] DFAT reports that Lebanon is experiencing severe economic depression. Supply of basic goods including medicines, food and fuel is unpredictable, and they are sometimes rationed. Subsidies that were applied to these goods were mostly lifted as the economic crisis deepened and many Lebanese who relied on subsidies have been left without access to these goods.[6]
[5] Olivier De Schutter, ‘Visit to Lebanon. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights’, United Nations Human Rights Council (11 April 2022) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 'In Focus: Women, Girls, Men and Boys with Disabilities in Lebanon' (28 July 2023) p 2,
[6] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon at 2.7 and 2.9
The Tribunal finds that if the applicant returned to Lebanon, she would be able to live with her parents in the family home in [Village 1], Akkar District. The Tribunal finds she would be financially supported by her parents and her brothers in Lebanon if she was not able to work herself. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant would experience significant economic hardship or be denied basic services that would threaten her capacity to exist within the meaning of s 5J(5)(d) or s 5J(5)(e) of the Act. While the applicant’s financial circumstances and standard of living may not be the same in Lebanon as they are in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this amounts to serious harm. Noting that what constitutes serious harm is not limited to the examples in s 5J(5), the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance of serious harm for economic reasons, having considered the evidence as a whole.
Claim to fear harm due to security situation in Lebanon
The applicant claims that she cannot return to Lebanon due to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in South Lebanon and shootings. The Tribunal accepts there is conflict between Israel and Hezbollah on Lebanon’s southern border and in parts of Beirut.[7] The Tribunal notes travel advice on the DFAT website which advises Australians not to travel to Lebanon due to the volatile security situation and the risk that it may deteriorate further.[8]
[7] BBC, ‘Israeli air strikes kill 492 people in Lebanon’ (24 September 2024)
[8] DFAT, Lebanon Travel Advice & Safety | Smartraveller (updated 21 September 2024)
Despite the current situation, the Tribunal has found that if the applicant returned to Lebanon, she would return to [Village 1] in the mountains in the north of Lebanon, an area not under Hezbollah control[9] and far from the conflict zone. The Tribunal therefore finds there is no real chance of serious harm to the applicant, due to the current conflict on the southern border of Lebanon, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[9] DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon at 3.36
Cumulative consideration of claims
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s accepted claims individually and cumulatively. She is [an age]-year-old divorced woman who had a past mental health condition. She is returning to a poor economic situation and a conflict in south Lebanon. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant fears persecution for reasons of her race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group if she returns to Lebanon, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant meets the definition of refugee in s 5H(1) of the Act and she does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
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) – that is, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm.
The Tribunal has considered the claimed harm from the applicant’s family members due to forced marriage and her divorce; claimed harm due to a past mental health condition; the economic crisis and the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. The Tribunal takes into account the above findings of fact in relation to the ‘real chance’ test and its findings that the applicant would not face serious harm from family members, or due to the economic crisis or the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict, if she were to return to Lebanon. For the same reasons, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real risk of significant harm to the applicant. That is, the Tribunal does not accept: that the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of her life; or that the death penalty will be carried out on her; or that she will be subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment (under s 36(2A) of the Act.
Under s 36(2B)(c) of the Act, there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. When the Tribunal discussed this issue with the applicant at the hearing, in the context of the economic situation and the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, she stated that the whole country was in danger. Having considered this response and the country information about Lebanon, including the DFAT Country Information Report for Lebanon, the Tribunal is satisfied that the risk of economic hardship, and exposure to the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict are risks faced by the population of Lebanon generally and not by the applicant personally. Therefore, the applicant is caught by the exception in s 36(2B)(c) of the Act and there is taken not to be a real risk of significant harm.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence, that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing:       10 October 2024
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.
…