1932441 (Refugee)

1932441 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2887 (20 June 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr George Botros (MARN: 1799679)
CASE NUMBER:  1932441
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon
MEMBER:Mark Bishop
DATE:20 June 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 20 June 2023 at 3:00pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – former member of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) – critical of Hezoballah – expressed in private to one person and not repeated – does not amount to a political opinion – Antiochian Orthodox Christian – economy of Lebanon – delay in seeking protection – complementary protection – credible witness – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 8 November 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon applied for the visa on 30 March 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis he made a finding the applicant’s claim that he was mistered and harmed in Lebanon because he was a Christian holding a critical view of the Hezbollah is not credible.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 May 2023 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 provided a copy of the decision record to the Tribunal.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
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 applicant lodged an application for a Holiday Visa to visit Australia on 19 August 2014. The incident that caused the applicant to flee Lebanon occurred on 24 August 2014[1]. He was granted the visa on 3 September 2014. He departed Lebanon for Australia [in] November 2014. He lodged an Application for a Protection Visa on 30 March 2015.[2] The applicant currently resides in Australia as the holder of a Bridging Visa A with nil conditions. This means he has work rights.
[1] See decision record page 2 and Statement of Claim.
[2] See decision record pages 1 and 5
The Tribunal notes a delay in seeking protection can support an adverse credibility finding as well as a finding that his fear of returning to Lebanon was not well-founded. In evidence the applicant advised[3] the Tribunal as to the reasons for his delay in lodging an Application for a Protection Visa. In addition to these reasons the applicant also advised the Tribunal his family only left their home village for 2 or 3 nights after the spearfishing incident and then returned home to their home in their own village because it was safer there, the village was heavily populated with identical faith adherents, there was only one road into and out of the small village and hence strangers would be readily seen by village people and neighbours alike. For these reasons it was safer for his family to return and remain in his home village. The applicant has extensive family in Australia. In addition almost a thousand people have emigrated to Australia from his home village and immediate surrounds since the 1960’s. Accordingly the applicant if he was of a mind had easy access to many people who would have been able to advise him of some of the relevant considerations or alternate sources of advice inclusive of departmental websites and self-help organisations within the Lebanese community in lodging an Application for a Protection Visa. There is some evidence before the Tribunal the applicant took advantage of these opportunities for a considerable time after his arrival in Australia. Possible legal fees became a bar to formal action to early lodgement of his Protection Visa Application.[4]
[3] See decision record, paragraph 17 under heading Post Interview Matters (4) and paragraph 25 under heading Delays.
[4] See paragraph 31 below for the Tribunal finding on this point.
In his Application[5] for a Protection Visa signed 6 March 2015 the applicant provided 4 photographs, (in translation from a Lebanese translator/interpreter in Lebanon circa February 2015) various army documents and declared as follows:
[5] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference]
·He is is an Antiochian Orthodox Christian born in [Village 1], Akkar Governorate of Lebanon on [date]. He is a citizen of Lebanon. His parents and some of his sibling have dual Australian and Lebanese citizenship.
·The applicant served in the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), predominantly with the [specified section], for [number] years. He retired from the LAF [in] 2010. At that time he was a [rank] in the [specified] Regiment. He was deployed to Lebanon in 1994 and Syria in 1997.[6]
[6] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference] Form 866C page 22 question 28
·The applicant was fishing one day when he got seized by a group of masked men dressed in black. They told him they knew who he was, they knew his address and that he served in the military. They told him they needed him and his fighting skills in Hezbollah. They let him go when a stranger came to see what was happening. They told him they would come back for him and force him to leave with them.
·The applicant fears that if he returns to Lebanon, he will be located by Hezbollah, recruited and forced to fight for them.
·Lebanon does not have a secure and stable government and Hezbollah controls the country and its institutions. The applicant fears he will not have any form or support or protection from the government and authorities in spite of his past service in the LAF.
·The applicant’s family is all in [Village 1]. Once he realised he was in danger, he came to Australia.
·The photographs[7] are as follows:
[7] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference]
oBlack and white picture of the applicant in a beret with a non-distinguishable insignia attached to the top of the beret.
oPicture of an unidentified man scaling a cliff with a rope.
oPicture of a 4 men in a platoon with what appears to be automatic weapons.
oPicture of a man in black scaling a cliff with a rope.
·Army documents[8] as follows:
oDischarge notice dated [in] 2010 for [the applicant], Military Number [specified], Rank [specified], Unit [specified] Regiment within the Headquarters of North Lebanon Zone.
oReservist Card valid [until] 2020 in the name of [the applicant] dated [in] 2010 with date of expiry of reservist status [until] 2020.
oStatement from [a named] Medical Centre advising [the applicant] was a victim of a gunshot in the [forearm] [in] June 2007 and underwent surgery to remove shrapnel under general anaesthesia. It appears this certificate was issued [in] February 2015[9].
oStatement of retirement at request of [the applicant] from [General A], CIC of the Army dated [in] 2015.
oExtract of birth certificate for the applicant
[8] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference]
[9] See Department File [Department file number] at [TRIM Reference]
On 3 October 2019 the applicant provided a summary of claims[10] to the Department summarised as follows:
·On 24 August 2014, while spearfishing, the applicant was confronted by a group of four masked men, one of which held a gun to the applicant’s head. Given the applicant’s expertise in the [military], he was able to identify the masked men as being part of Hezbollah on account of their dark clothing and markings. They told him they would need his fighting skills and knowledge of fighting.
·They let the applicant go as soon as a stranger came to see what was happening. The men warned him they would come back to get him and force him to leave with them. They warned him not to tell anyone, or they would find him and kill him.
·There was no reason for the Hezbollah to try to recruit the applicant because he was Christian and he explicitly detested Hezbollah. In the army, he served with a soldier called [Mr B], who was later recruited by Hezbollah. The applicant talked on occasion in front of [Mr B] about his dislike of Hezbollah and their control of Lebanon and he openly disapproved of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah.
·After the incident, the applicant and his family moved to the applicant wife’s parents in the next village.
·Once he realised he was in danger, he came to Australia.
·The applicant is very proud of his service in the LAF and his family. Through hard work and love, he and his wife were able to build a beautiful home for their three children. The applicant suffers emotionally because of being away from them. The applicant would not have given up his family by choice if he was not genuinely threatened by serious harm.
·The applicant’s family does not leave their home, and only do the trips that are necessary. The family informed the applicant that on a couple of occasions, people that are unknown to them had come to their place and asked of the applicant’s whereabouts.
·Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organisation by the most and hinders the development of the country.
[10] See decision record page 2
The Tribunal summarised the applicant’s subsequent written claims[11] as follows:
·He was preparing to go spearfishing on a riverbank and was attacked and held captive by 4 men he identified as part of Hezbollah. In discussion they told him “they need my expertise and skills of fighting”. He believes they were tracking him.
·He heard background noise, his attackers loosened their grip on him, they threatened him and took off.
·His wife was fearful after he told her of the events. They decided to flee to her parents home in a different village.
·Whilst in the Lebanese army he told another soldier a [Mr B] of his dislike of Hezbollah and its then leader. He is also a Christian. For these reasons there is no cause for Hezbollah to recruit him. He will be killed for his beliefs if he returns to Lebanon.
·His family have informed him that on a couple of occasions, that there have been people that are unknown to them, ask of my whereabouts.
·Should he be forced to return to Lebanon, he will be taken by Hezbollah as they threatened to do so. For [number] years he served his country as a solider defending Lebanon and its citizens against external aggression, maintaining internal stability and security. He is unable to ask his government to protect him. How do you ask for protection from the very people that seek to do you harm?
·Lebanon at the moment does not have a stable and secure government, which means he will not have the support and protection he requires. How do you seek protection from a government that most consider a terrorist group, being Hezbollah, which reside in the Lebanese parliament and have such a strong hold over Lebanon?
[11] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference]
The applicant provided a post-interview submission[12] that set out the following:
[12] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference]
·Australia’s Protection Obligations.
·Background and Claims[13]
[13] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference] Written submission pages 6 and 7 essentially replicating the matters set out in paragraph 16.
·Country Information re Hezbollah[14]
·Post Interview Matters (4)
oHezbollah members outlined they wished to recruit him for his army skills but the applicant thinks their intent was unclear and they had ulterior motives. The applicant served with a former Hezbollah member and expressed his dislike and disapproval of Hezbollah to this fellow soldier. The applicant is a Christian and does not believe Hezbollah would recruit him and hence it was their intention to kill him.
oThe timing of the alleged incident after the applicant had lodged an Application for a Holiday Visa in his home country to visit Australia was coincidental. The applicant did not fabricate his claims. The applicant is a man of honour and has not embellished his claims. The applicant has stated the facts as they occurred to him and to the best of his recollection pertaining to the exact dates. He had a gun against his head and threats made against his life.
oThe applicant is not politically inclined or affiliated. The applicant is a target because he is perceived to be an enemy of Hezbollah. The applicant has vehemently spoken out against an organisation who have killed for less. Simple opposition is ample reason to single out an individual for execution.
oApplicant delay in lodging his Application for a Protection Visa and in travelling to Australia exhibit a lack of imminent risk of harm as claimed. There were valid reasons as to why the applicant did not travel to Australia [until] November 2014, after his visitor visa was granted on 3 September 2014. There are valid reasons why the applicant did not apply for a protection visa until March 2015. The applicant was unable to travel to Australia immediately until November 2014, due to the difficulty associated with departing without ensuring that his family would be adequately protected or hidden. This issue was of colossal importance to the applicant.
·The necessity of following a reasonable approach to the findings of credibility and relevant case law.[15] Submission there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant is not a credible person. Any discrepancies may have resulted from the applicant’s misunderstanding or failure to recall particular dates. The applicant’s account regarding the incident of targeted harm of harassment and threats to be killed is genuine and credible.[16] In this respect the Tribunal notes the dicta[17] in Mohamed v MIMA (1998) 83 FCR 234, [1998] where Hill J held at 246: “There is no requirement in law that the evidence of an applicant or, for that matter, any other person requires corroboration before it is accepted. Of course, there is no principle of law either that the Tribunal must accept what a witness says. It is for the Tribunal to assess the veracity of a witness and, from all the material before it, to find facts and reach a conclusion.”
·Reference to DFAT Smart Traveller re the need to exercise a high degree of caution in Lebanon because conflict in neighbouring Syria, the threat of terrorist attack and ongoing political and sectarian tensions.[18]
[14] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference] Written submission page 8 re Hezbollah and references to “DFAT Country Information Report Lebanon”, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 March 2019, p.15.
[15] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference] Written submission pages 10 to 13
[16] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference] Written submission pages 12 to 13
[17] See also paragraph 35 below and foot note 68.
[18] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference] Written submission page13 and citation number 8 therein >
On 12 October 2019 the applicant provided to the Department the Country Information Report (CIR)[19] on Lebanon plus 3 separate[20] submissions that contained the same extract from this report being critics of Hezbollah.[21]
[19] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference]
[20] [Department file number] [TRIM Reference], [Department file number] [TRIM Reference] and [Department file number] [TRIM Reference]
[21] at 3.31-3.35 page23-24
On 10 February 2023 the applicant provided pre-hearing submissions summarised by the Tribunal as follows:
1)Australia’ Protection Obligations
2)Background and Protection Claims
a)On 30 March 2015 the applicant lodged ab Application for an Onshore Protection Visa.
b)The applicant is a Lebanese citizen by birth and lived there for the majority of his life with his family who are practicing Christians of the Antiochian Orthodox denomination. [The applicant] identifies as Antiochian Orthodox Christian. [The applicant] has served in the Lebanese military for the majority of his life, predominantly with the [specified section] until his retirement in or [around] 2010.
c)[The applicant]’s life in Lebanon was relatively peaceful until the incident which occurred on 24 August 2014. On 24 August 2014, whilst spearfishing, [the applicant] was confronted by a group of four masked men, one of which held a gun to [the applicant]’s head. Given [the applicant]’s expertise in the [military], he was able to identify the masked men as being part of Hezbollah on account of their dark clothing and markings. The men referred to [the applicant] by his exact name and knew all of his personal details.
d)It wasn’t until he heard a group of voices approaching in the distance that the assailants slowly loosened their grip on the applicant and told him that “they will be back for [him] and if [he] chose to tell anyone they will find and kill [him]”. Once they were rattled by the strangers in the distance, the Hezbollah members began leaving and [the applicant] kept an eye on them until they were out of sight and proceeded to make his way back home.
e)After [the applicant] explained [to his family] what happened, his family decided it would be safest if they fled to his wife’s parent’s home and stayed in a different village for the night. The applicant maintains his ongoing fear, if he is forced to return to Lebanon he will be located by Hezbollah, recruited and forced to participate in their activities, such as fighting and supporting them. The applicant quickly identified that his life was in serious danger. The applicant departed Lebanon in November 2014 and made his way to Australia on a Visitor Visa.
f)The applicant’s fear of persecution is based on:
i.Being mistreated and harmed in Lebanon because of his proud status as a former [member of the] Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and speaking critically of Hezoballah;
ii.Fear of being forced to join, be killed or harmed by Hezoballah; and
iii.Fear of being mistreated or harmed by Hezoballah because of his open disapproval of Hezoballah and is leader Hassan Nasrallah.
g)The delegate in the decision record, in summary, did not accept the following:
i.The applicant was mistreated and harmed in Lebanon because he was critical of Hezoballah;
ii.The applicant was forced to join Hezoballah and fight for them; and
iii.The applicant was mistreated or harmed in Lebanon by Hezoballah because he was a Christian.
3)Country Information and Protection Measures – Lebanon
h)DFAT Country Information Report (CIR)[22] re Hezbollah activities within the Shi’a community preventing emergence of alternate sources of power, harassment of independent NGO’s in Hezbollah controlled areas inclusive of the comment that “Hezbollah activists will only revert to direct threats, including of violence, if they feel their power is genuinely threatened.” and a DFAT assessment that those within the Shi’a community without wasta (powerful or influential people) “…are highly unlikely to be able to criticise Hezbollah without consequence.”
[22] Doc Id Number page 7 and 8
i)DFAT Smart Traveller that outlines past armed clashes in Lebanon, protests, industrial strikes, likely terrorist attacks (which may include the Lebanese Armed Forces), extremist attacks in the lead-up to days of national or religious significance and the ongoing conflict in Syria is affecting stability in Lebanon.
j)Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Lebanon: Recruitment practices of Hezbollah…’ (29 October 2015) Report and sources cited therein that outlines Hezbollah extensive security apparatus, political organisation and social services, Supporters throughout Lebanon, an ability to locate and track direct entrants to Lebanon through the main airport, large number of Hezbollah attacks since 1982, “Activists in Lebanon, in particular those who speak out against Hezbollah, continue to face physical attacks, arrest, psychological pressure and threats to their families…” anti-government protests in Lebanon in 2020 as the currency tanked, deaths at Hezbollah protests in 2021, street violence in Lebanon in 2021 over a judicial probe into Hezbollah connection to a massive bomb blast and continuing anger against Hezbollah over unresolved incidents relating to attacks and assassinations.
k)This country information is a clear and honest representation of the obvious instability occurring in Lebanon, as past and present political unrest and corruption has put the nation and its citizens under immense apprehension and pressure, forcing the applicant to fall victim to the atrocities.
4)Submissions re Applicant Credibility, Inconsistent Claims, No Requirement to Corroborate Claims, Delay in Departure
l)Decision maker taking a reasonable approach, when making a finding of fact re applicant claims bear in mind difficulties faced by asylum seekers, reliance on anecdotal evidence in Canada, failure of delegate to take a fair and just approach, decision maker took a grossly over-stringent approach to applicant evidence, alleged status of the applicant, Hezbollah do target individuals, Lebanon is now severely compromised and conflicted, Hezbollah is at a understanding with the current government of Lebanon, protesters are acting against a corrupt government and “Hezoballah is a terrorist group known to utilize unlawful violence and intimidation in a twisted effort to uphold their integrity and maintain their powerful influence”.
m)Delegate finding that applicant’s claims that he may have been recruited or murdered by Hezbollah’s men to be not credible, failure of delegate to consider subjective opinion of applicant, comments of [Mr B] (whether or not a member of Hezbollah) at the relevant time were critical of the applicant, the applicant has no reason as to why Hezbollah would want to harm him and should not be discredited for attempting to understand a terrifying event, the applicant could not have possibly known “…whether Hezbollah’s intentions were to kill, recruit, or harm him” and the applicant “…regardless of which fate he is subject to, is still at a high risk of harm and should be taken at his word.”
n)As set out in Mohamed v MIMA[23] per Hill J at 486 said “There is no requirement in law that the evidence of an applicant or, for that matter, any other person requires corroboration before it is accepted. Of course, there is no principle of law either that the Tribunal must accept what a witness says. It is for the Tribunal to assess the veracity of a witness and, from all the material before it, to find facts and reach a conclusion.” When assessing claims made by the applicant the Tribunal needs to make findings of fact in relation to those claims. This usually involves an assessment of the credibility of the applicant. When doing so, it is important to bear in mind the difficulties often faced by asylum seekers. The applicant was unsure of the exact intention for why Hezoballah would want him harmed. Reasonable presumptions of the applicant related to his Christianity, prior disapproval of all political groups in Lebanon, the fact the applicant does not follow one specific political party puts him in the firing line of Hezbollah, whether or not the applicant was harmed due to being a Christian is an irrelevant factor to be considered.
o)The foregoing shows the gross oversight on part of the delegate in efficiently assessing the applicant’s claims. These claims were not only misunderstood, but also construed to be something that they were not, resulting in a decision made based entirely on a misconception. The applicant contends “…the delegate’s reasoning for refusal was flawed on the basis of subjective reasoning, which was inappropriate having regard to the applicant’s circumstances.”
[23](1998) 83 FCR 234, [1998] FCA 485

The Tribunal notes a significant portion of the applicant’s submission concentrates on a refutation of the delegate’s reasoning and hence asserts the findings were flawed and in error. The Tribunal notes the matter before it is a review application. The Tribunal is not a court of appeal that considers and determines the finding of a subordinate body. The proceeding is a review application. The review application commences ab initio. The Tribunal brings a fresh mind to all information on the Department and Tribunal files, inclusive of written submissions, the decision record, Country Information Reports and the oral evidence of the applicant.
On 6 February 2023 the Tribunal write to the applicant in the following terms:
I am writing in relation to the application for review made by you in respect of a decision to refuse to grant a Protection visa.
You are requested to provide the following information:
·Details inclusive of gross salary, net salary and superannuation payments plus supporting documentation for all employment since entering Australia.
·Statement of employment from relevant employers for all work in Australia since entering this country.
·Copies of all bank account statements since entering Australia until present time.
·Copies of all remittance payments to family in Lebanon since entering Australia.
Please provide this information, in writing, by 5pm on 14 February 2023. If the information is in a language other than English, it must be accompanied by an English translation from an accredited translator.
On 13 February and 15 February 2023 the applicant provided the information as requested. Tribunal analysis shows the following:
·ATO Notice of Assessment for FY2015 until FY2022 showing assessable income of $27,000 up to $39,000 for each financial year.
·Regular remittances to [Ms C] (spouse of the applicant) of in aggregate $8,800 in the period 12 November 2022 until 3 February 2023, $13,300 in the period 5 June 2022 until 12 November 2022 and $11,800 in the period 8 May 2022 until 6 October 2022 giving a total remit of $33,900 in the 9 month period 8 May 2022 until 3 February 2023 or an annualised figure of approximately $45,000.
·Bank Statements from January 2016 until December 2022 showing regular large deposits for “[Occupation 1] work”, sundry large cash deposits from a [Dr D], regular fortnightly large direct credits generally in the amount of $1,000 in the name of [Mrs E] under the descriptor of “[specified]” and other large cash deposits, transfers or credits. Aggregate yearly deposits are as follows:
oCalendar year 2016 $34,956
oCalendar year 2017 $47,129
oCalendar year 2018 $74,862
oCalendar year 2019 $113,073
oCalendar year 2020 $95,130
oCalendar year 2021 $112,751
oCalendar year 2022 $169,170
·Evidence of employment as a [Occupation 1] sub-contractor at approximately $300 per day for a number of varying days from September 2017 until present with [Company 1] accompanied by a personal reference to his good character.
The first hearing was set down for 17 February 2023. The applicant did not attend the review hearing. The Tribunal decided it was appropriate to issue[24] an interim dismissal notice. The applicant sought[25] reinstatement and provided reasons. The Tribunal granted[26] same. The Tribunal issued[27] a further invitation to attend a review hearing on 25 May 2023.
[24] Doc ID number 10752041
[25] Doc ID number 10807357
[26] Doc ID number 10814346
[27] Doc ID number 10823610
Background Information as to [Village 1], Akkar Governate of Lebanon
Information made available to the Department and Tribunal shows the following:
·According to the material in the PV application form, the applicant’s family is in [Village 1], Akkar Governate of Lebanon.
·The incident occurred on 24 August 2014, with the applicant stating that while spearfishing, he was approached by four masked men. In the delegate’s Decision Record, it notes[28] that this occurred “in isolated area on [named] River.”
·After the incident, “the applicant and his family moved to the applicant wife’s parents in the next village”[29].
·The village itself is not named in the applicant’s Statement of Claims[30] or the Post Interview Submissions[31] provided by the Representative. This same information about the applicant’s family relocating to the “next village” was repeated in the pre-hearing submissions[32] provided to the Tribunal on 10 February 2023 with no specific village name provided.
[28] Decision record.
[29] Department File [Department file number], TRIM Reference [TRIM Reference]
[30] Department File [Department file number], TRIM Reference [TRIM Reference]
[31] Department File [Department file number], TRIM Reference [TRIM Reference]
[32] Tribunal File 1932441. Document ID 10729174
In evidence the applicant advised the Tribunal as follows:
Family, remittances and assets
·He is married with 3 adult children aged [age] [age] and [age]. The youngest child is a boy. His adult children are all university graduates or attending post-secondary school education. His children live in the family home with their mother.
·He has extensive family living in Australia approaching approximately 1,000 persons who reside in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. His family are all Antiochian Christian and all have their origins in the village of [Village 1] in the north of [Lebanon].
·There are less than 200 people living in [Village 1]. People have been emigrating to Australia since the 1960’s. Nearly all, if not all the people who live in [Village 1] follow the Antiochian Christian faith.
·After an alleged threat was made to the applicant in August 2014 by 4 armed men wearing face masks his family shifted to his mother-in-law’s home in a nearby village for 2 or 3 days for reasons of safety. They returned to their own home after 3 days because after more mature consideration it was deemed safer as their was only one road giving access to the village and strangers would be observed from the outset by other village people.
·He remits to his family in Lebanon substantial sums of money for their living expenses. The Tribunal read out the detail of financial remittances summarised in paragraph 22 above and he and his solicitor agreed the Tribunal outline was correct. The applicant advised the Tribunal deposits from [Dr D] and [Mrs E] were for [Occupation 1] work. The applicant advised the Tribunal as to his employment arrangements as summarised in paragraph 22 above and the Tribunal noted it appeared the applicant worked as a contractor, sub-contractor and employed [Occupation 1] at different times. The solicitor for the applicant agreed with this assessment.
·The applicant owns his own house and land in his village. The land size is about 2000 sq metres. He receives a pension from the army that amounts to about US$50 per month. His family do not work in Lebanon and their only source of income is his remittances from Australia. He does not own any other assets in Lebanon.
Delays
·The Tribunal examined the applicant as to the two lengthy periods of delay involved in coming to Australia and after arrival in this country the lodging of his Application for a Protection Visa as set out in paragraph 12 above.
oThe delay in the period 3 September 2014 until 9 November 2014 was occasioned by the need to make his family secure in his absence and post the making of the threat to his person. He said he had previously visited Australia on 4 occasions, once with his family to honour the grave of his mother who died in this country. On each occasion he had abided by all conditions attached to his temporary visa and left on time.
oThe delay in the second period was occasioned by the fact he was new to Australia, he had not advice sources, he had few funds, as he was not working, he did not know or understand the process of visa application in Australia and until he was referred to his current solicitor (who speaks Arabic) had not received any assistance. The solicitor for the applicant provided documents to the Tribunal that outlined the applicant had sought advice from the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre on or around 2 March 2023 and possibly in late February 2023.
Income
·The applicant advised the Tribunal the summary and detail outlined in paragraph 22 was correct.
Hezbollah
·The Tribunal made available to the applicant the information summarised about Hezbollah derived from various Country Information sources as follows:
o   Hezbollah is properly regarded as a political or ideological organisation with an armed wing that engages in warfare directed to achieving specific outcomes.
o   Hezbollah is very strong in certain defined geographic areas of Lebanon, the de facto source of all authority in those areas and has a presence elsewhere in the country.
o   Hezbollah recruits extensively in the Bekaa valley in the north of Lebanon to the west of the Lebanon mountains that act as an effective but passable internal boundary dividing east and west in the north of the country.
o   Hezbollah find it almost impossible to trust non-Shia people, does not recruit them because it is an ideological organisation where adherence to core principles is paramount.
o   Forced recruitment by Hezbollah is so rare as to be almost non-existent.
o   There is active and ongoing daily consultation between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the military wing of Hezbollah.
·Asked to comment the applicant advised Hezbollah were concentrated in the Bekaa valley and the south of Lebanon. He knew more than the Tribunal. Hezbollah was an ally of the LAF to protect and cover their own activities. If Hezbollah wants something it can get it anywhere in Lebanon. Many things are not reported by the media. Hezbollah has the ability to locate any person anywhere in Lebanon. His prior criticism of Hezbollah whilst in the LAF were the cause of threats to he and his family. Hezbollah maintain and extensive presence in the Bekka valley in the north of Lebanon so as to be able to receive arms from Syria and Lebanon. The applicant’s solicitor refereed the Tribunal to various parts of Smart Traveller and associated warnings. The applicant believes he has been specifically targeted by Hezbollah because of his service in the LAF which puts him at a high risk.
Lebanese economy and geography
·The Tribunal provided to the applicant information derived from CI sources as to the parlous nature of the Lebanese economy that set out it barely exists any longer in any fundamental economic sense, banks are regularly shut, deposits continue to be frozen and inaccessible by account-holders, most of the Lebanese middle class rely extensively on remittances from abroad to survive, capital investment is almost non-existent in Lebanon and government services are almost non-existent in Lebanon. After consideration the applicant advised the Tribunal the summary was correct and things were very bad.
·After providing 3 maps in colour to the applicant and his solicitor the applicant agreed with the Tribunal that geographic boundaries or borders within Lebanon were significantly determined by religious demographics with the north east to the Syrian border basically being Sunni Islam with enclaves of predominantly Christian faith adherents, the east centre of Lebanon was essentially Maronite Christian with a large enclave of other Christian and a smaller enclave of Shiite Islam adherents, the Bekka valley was essentially Shiite Islam with significant border enclaves of Sunni Islam and Catholic adherents, the middle part of the country from east to west was populated in many enclaves by multiple religious faith adherents and the south of Lebanon to the Israeli border was basically Shiite Islam with limited enclaves of Maronite, Catholic, other Christian and Sunnis Islamic adherents on the border of Israel.
·The applicant regarded living in his village as very safe because of the small population and relative difficulty of access via one road only where strangers would be seen early on by friends and village people.
·The applicant confirmed he resided in an almost totally Antiochian Christian village. It had been so for hundreds of years. All of his family and that of his wife are Antiochian Christians. The areas immediately surrounding his village are of a similar denomination although the larger area to the north to the Syrian border is Sunni Islam not Shiite Islam with only a limited enclave of Shiite Islam adherents.
·He said there was easy access across the various Lebanese mountains.
Army career
- The applicant joined the army in [year] at the age of [age] because he needed a job, served for 4 years, resigned for 2 years, re-joined and served from [year] until he retired in 2010. He had a steady career enjoying regular promotion through [number] grades to the rank of [specified rank]. In the last 10 years of his army career he served in the [specified section]. He did not see active service outside Lebanon borders. He saw constant active service within Lebanon. He was wounded in combat. He underwent a lot of training over many years. The Tribunal read to him the detail of paragraph 26 under the heading [specified] Regiment webpage lists their mission. He advised he had done all this or similar training as undergoing training was the basis of promotion. He agreed he was a highly trained and expert and skilled soldier in a difficult area of endeavour.
Spearfishing incident
·The applicant advised he left home, walked about 2 km to the [named] river, was dressed in a t-shirt and shorts, was approached by 4 armed men wearing masks who called him by name and said they needed him to come and fight in Syria. He was concerned they knew his name and did not believe they wanted him to join Hezbollah and fight in Syria because he was of the view based upon his own knowledge and experience that the forces in Syria were well-numbered, not short of men and quite proficient in their military role. He was reminded of his experiences in the LAF where a particular [rank officer] by the name of [Mr B] was a person of Shiite Islamic attachment and who resigned the applicant thought in 2006 to join Hezbollah.
·The applicant believes this individual carries an enmity towards him, reported his views on Hezbollah and its leadership within his own party and this caused Hezbollah to dispatch the 4 men to accost him and threaten him.
·The applicant advised he had only one argument with this individual in his 10 years of service with him in the LAF. The applicant advised it was a serious offence to engage in political discussions within the LAF. The applicant advised he never had any confrontation with this individual
·The applicant believes the root cause of the enmity between this individual and himself is the applicant’s insults about Hezbollah and its particular leadership. He advised he cannot express his views on Hezbollah anywhere in Lebanon because they have a presence across the entire country. He did no know if this individual reported his view to Hezbollah. He cannot think of any other reason as to why Hezbollah would send armed men to threaten him and possibly kill him.
·He has not raised the spearfishing incident with church elders, village leaders or senior persons in the command cadres within the LAF. He has not sought the assistance of any outside person or organisation. Apart from his immediate family he did not relay the incident to other family members. He did not escalate the incident or seek intervention of others because he does not rust the privacy of his confidences and believes if he did his family might be harmed.
·Apart from the above explanation he is at a loss to explain why 4 armed men, presumed to be from Hezbollah and remote from their own resource base, many years after he retired from the army, would enter an almost exclusively Antiochian Christian area, accost him as a known Antiochian Christian person and threaten him many years after minor political discussions about Hezbollah and its leadership.
·He last saw his youngest son when he was aged [age]. He is now [age]. He misses being with his wife and children.
Country Information
[Lebanon Armed Forces (LAF)]
Information made available to the Department and Tribunal shows the following:
History
·According to information on the Department File, the applicant’s service in the Lebanese Armed Forces is recorded as per the Service Memorandum recording discharge of soldiers and putting them on retirement[33] which records the applicant’s details as follows:
[33] Department File [Department file number], TRIM Reference [TRIM Reference]
o[the applicant]
oMilitary number: [number]
oRank: [specified rank]
oUnit: [specified] Regiment
oWithin the jurisdiction of: The Headquarters of North Lebanon Zone
oThe date of retirement was [date] 2010.
·The official website of the Lebanese Army[34] provides detailed information on the structure and history of the Lebanese Armed Forces. It also lists the “[specified] Regiment” as [details redacted].
[34] Lebanese Army
·[Specified] Regiment webpage[35] lists their mission.
[35] [Source redacted]
o[Details redacted].
o[Details redacted].
o[Details redacted].
o[Details redacted].
o[Details redacted].
o[Details redacted].
o[Details redacted].
o[Details redacted].
·The Tribunal accessed publicly available information[36] that detailed some general information about Lebanese [Armed Forces] as follows:
oThe Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and Lebanon more broadly, is one of the largest recipients of foreign assistance in the Middle East.
oThe vast majority of foreign security assistance to Lebanon comes in the form of training and equipment, with the United States as its primary partner, followed by the European Union.
oHistorically, U.S. training of LAF personnel has largely focused on foundational professionalization and equipment maintenance. From 2008 onward, the United States significantly increased its training of the LAF's special forces units, including the Lebanese Ranger Regiment, the Lebanese Air Assault Regiment, and the Lebanese Marine Commandos (also known as the Lebanese Navy SEALs).
oLocally, Lebanon has eight military schools within the country. The Military Academy and Fouad Chehab Academy train cadets and junior officers at the foundational professional and tactical levels, while two non-commissioned officer training centres provide similar schooling for enlisted soldiers.
oThe Personnel Training Institute at the Araman Training Camp focuses on providing more advanced training on rule of law, human rights, and military discipline to longer-serving soldiers. There are also specialized academies like the Special Forces School, which trains units such as the Ranger Regiment, Airborne Regiment, and Marine Commandos; the Ski School, which trains soldiers for combat and rescue missions in snow conditions; and the High Centre for Military Sport, which manages and trains military sports teams.
·In addition the Tribunal accessed[37] the following article from January 2021 regarding the highly regarded [unit] that details the education and training of [special forces units] and highlights in considerable detail their professionalism, dedication to service to country, ongoing education in technical proficiencies, constant training, enforcement of strict adherence to rules of engagement and their ability to integrate their professional skills when faced[38] “…faced with the complex and dangerous security challenge of hybrid warfare, which employs and synchronizes all military,
[36] [Source redacted]
[37] [Source redacted]
[38] Ibid page 2
Hezbollah

Country Information discloses the following:
What is Hezbollah[39]?
[39] What Is Hezbollah? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)
·Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim political party and militant group based in Lebanon, where its extensive security apparatus, political organization, and social services network fostered its reputation as “a state within a state.” Founded in the chaos of the fifteen-year Lebanese Civil War, the Iran-backed group is driven by its opposition to Israel and its resistance to Western influence in the Middle East.
·Hezbollah controls much of Lebanon’s Shiite-majority areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the eastern Bekaa Valley region.
The extent[40] of its presence in Lebanon
[40] Ibid
·Hezbollah has been a fixture of the Lebanese government since 1992, when eight of its members were elected to Parliament, and the party has held cabinet positions since 2005.
·The party marked its integration into mainstream politics in 2009 with an updated manifesto that was less Islamist than its predecessor and called for “true democracy.”
·The most recent national elections, in 2022, saw Hezbollah maintain its 13 seats in Lebanon’s 128-member Parliament, though the party and its allies lost their majority.
·At the same time, Hezbollah maintains its military arm. Under the 1989 Taif Agreement, which was brokered by Saudi Arabia and Syria and ended Lebanon’s civil war, Hezbollah was the only militia allowed to keep its arms.
What is its purpose in Lebanon?
·Various sources set out the following:
oHezbollah has used its political leverage and military capabilities to subvert Lebanon’s sovereignty, incorporating itself into virtually every major sector of Lebanese society through its political wing and the creation of its own parallel institutions[41].
[41] Hezbollah Influence in Lebanon_061722.pdf (counterextremism.com) Counter Extremism Project, June 2022 page 40
oFor nearly two decades, Hezbollah’s stated objective was to drive IDF forces from southern Lebanon, through a range of attacks on Israeli military and civilian targets. Since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, Hezbollah has used Israel’s remaining presence in the Sheb’a Farms and other disputed areas in the Lebanon-Syria-Israel tri-border region to justify its ongoing conflict with Israel—and its persistence as an armed militia alongside the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). Hezbollah also bolsters Iranian objectives; the State Department’s 2021 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Iran provides Hezbollah with “most of its funding, training, weapons, and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, monetary, and organizational aid.”
oHezbollah operates a global criminal-financial network, with reported hubs in Europe, Africa, and Latin America.
oIn addition to military and criminal objectives, Hezbollah also seeks influence in Lebanon’s political system, likely in part to prevent the government from targeting the group’s weapons stockpiles or private telecommunications network[42]
[42] Lebanese Hezbollah United States. Congressional Research Service. 11 January 2023
What does democracy[43] look like inside Hezbollah?
[43] What does democracy look like inside Hezbollah?, L’Orient le Jour (L’Orient Today), 28 March 2023
- Various sources set out the following:
oHezbollah’s detractors, argue that the party’s democratic front is merely a façade. “Internal debates between the different councils are merely variations on the same theme. They are all on the same side and share the same ideology,” said a Shiite opponent on condition of anonymity, given the sensitivity of the issue.
oSherif Sleiman, a lawyer affiliated with the October 2019 protest movement who is familiar with Hezbollah circles, confirmed that personal freedom of speech diminishes as soon as a party member is in the company of his peers. “When face-to-face with a party member, a party member expresses themselves freely without restraint. But when in a group, censorship and group influence take over,” Sleiman said.
oAccording to Hage Ali, Hezbollah is just as democratic as other Lebanese political parties that operate based on political lineage and offer limited opportunities for advancement or mobility. The researcher explained that the party has created opportunities for workers and individuals at the lower rungs of the social hierarchy to progress within the party.
o“It’s similar to international corporations where employees are promised opportunities to grow alongside the organization,” Hage Ali added. Elections serve as a means to reward loyalty and promote individuals within the party.
Recruitment[44] style of Hezbollah
[44] 'LBN201146.E - Lebanon: Hezbollah [Hizbollah, Hizbullah, Hizballah, the Party of God], including political participation and representation, military activities and areas under control; recruitment practices, including forced recruitment and consequences', Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 08 September 2022.
- Various sources set out the following:
oThe PhD candidate stated that it is "difficult" for "foreign researchers" to identify recruitment and training practices by Hezbollah and to gain "direct" access to the group's internal organization (PhD candidate 2 Aug. 2022). Nevertheless, sources indicated that Hezbollah most notably conducts its recruitment among members of Shia communities (Independent consultant 27 July 2022; PhD candidate 2 Aug. 2022; Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022). Sources also noted that the group provides financial and social incentives to those who join it (Lecturer 1 Aug. 2022; Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022), including monthly remuneration, "entry points" into the state public service, judiciary, and private sector opportunities, as well as access to a certain "social status" (Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022).
oSources indicated that Shia "youth" are [the "primary" (PhD candidate 12 Aug. 2022)] sources for recruitment into Hezbollah's party wing (PhD candidate 2 Aug. 2022; Professor 12 Aug. 2022; Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022). The PhD candidate added that Hezbollah seeks to frame a "common destiny between the Shia" and Hezbollah as their sole legitimate representative, and to ensure "that the Shia youth sees its future naturally" within the group (PhD candidate 2 Aug. 2022).
oAccording to the independent consultant, Dahieh, the Bekaa Valley, and the south of Lebanon—areas where a Shia-majority population exists—are also where Hezbollah "focuses" the "vast majority" of its recruitment efforts (Independent consultant 27 July 2022). Chatham House reports that southern Lebanon became a "useful recruitment base" for Hezbollah in the aftermath of the Israeli invasion of 1982 (Chatham House 11 Aug. 2021).
oSources noted that the recruitment of non-Shia members (Independent consultant 27 July 2022) or non-Shia and non-Lebanese members (Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022) is "limited" (Independent consultant 27 July 2022) or "applies only to a small number of recruits" (Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022). The independent consultant wrote that this is because "trust is paramount" for a "secretive" group like Hezbollah, and it remains "difficult" for them to "trust non-Shia" (Independent consultant 27 July 2022). In cases where non-Shia are recruited, sources noted that it is done for specific roles, including intelligence gathering (Independent consultant 27 July 2022; Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022). According to the Visiting Lecturer, non-Shia members may also be "bankrolled" by Hezbollah to "sustain their partisan structures" at their respective local levels, including pro-Hezbollah Sunnis, Druze, and Christian local leaders (Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022).
Forced recruitment[45]
[45] Ibid
- Various sources indicated that they are not aware of reports of forced recruitment employed by Hezbollah (Independent consultant 27 July 2022; Lecturer 1 Aug. 2022; PhD candidate 2 Aug. 2022; Professor 12 Aug. 2022; Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022), with the Visiting Lecturer specifying "at least not in the last ten years" (Visiting Lecturer 10 Aug. 2022). The Professor added that even during the recruitment of fighters for the war in Syria, there had "been no reports of troops forcibly sent" (Professor 12 Aug. 2022).
Hezbollah relationship with Lebanese Armed Forces[46]
[46] Hezbollah Influence in Lebanon_061722.pdf (counterextremism.com) Counter Extremism Project, June 2022 page 25
·According to Lebanese Hezbollah media reports, there is “almost daily” coordination between the LAF and Hezbollah against Syrian rebel groups.
·According to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah and the LAF form a multilateral defence of Lebanon.
Economy of Lebanon
Economic situation
·Lebanon is now facing the most serious financial crises in its history which has crippled the economy. In June 2021 the World Bank stated that Lebanon’s economic crisis was possibly among the three most severe global crises episodes in the last 150 years. The World Bank also stated that this was taking place ‘amidst deliberate inaction.[47] In May 2022 the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights stated that today the country stands as ‘a failing State.[48] Around 80 percent of the population now lives in poverty[49], up from 55 percent in 2020253 and 28 percent in 2019[50].
[47] Lebanon Sinking into One of the Most Severe Global Crisis Episodes, amongst Deliberate Inaction
[49]
·With the near collapse of the banking system, the country’s middle-class has faced a massive wealth destruction with many families now relying heavily on remittances provided by the diaspora for their basic needs.
·A November 2022 report characterizes Lebanon as the most remittance-dependent country globally, with an estimated total of US$ 6.6 billion in remittances[51] received in 2021.
[51] Escalating needs in Lebanon - A 2023 overview page 8.
·Nationally the unemployment rate is 29.6 per cent, with men and women at 28.4 and 32.7 per cent respectively according to Lebanon Labour Force follow up survey (2022)[52].
[52] Lebanon Labour Force follow up survey (2022).
·Regarding Akkar region: About 2.1 million people (54.9 per cent of the resident Lebanese population) are estimated to be in need of some form of humanitarian assistance. Akkar district in Akkar governorate and El Meten district in Mount Lebanon governorate host equally the highest percentage of People in Need (PiN) with 10.1 and 9.4 per cent each.[53]
[53] Escalating needs in Lebanon - A 2023 overview page 25
·Capital investment[54] for Lebanon in 2014 was 24.34 percent, dropping to 12.24 percent in 2019, with the latest value from 2021 at 5.59 percent.
[54] Lebanon Capital investment, percent of GDP - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com
Welfare and social services
·Lebanon’s welfare system largely consists of informal patronage networks (wasta) based on its confessional political system.[55] This leaves a large section of society without any formal state based social protection.[56] Lebanon ‘lacks unemployment insurance, child benefits, old-age or disability pensions and sickness and parenthood benefits.’[57] Human Rights Watch states that ‘clientelism and patronage networks…operate through sectarian incentives, in lieu of state welfare institutions, which entail using one’s sect as the primary means to obtain basic services.’[58]
Health
·Lebanon’s public health system is small and underfunded and a large percentage of hospitals are private. DFAT reports that the ‘standard of public health care in Lebanon is widely considered to be very poor’[59]. Over 80 percent of Lebanon’s hospitals are private[60]. The latest official statistics show that around 44 percent of the Lebanese population does not have any health insurance coverage.
·Reports indicate that Lebanon’s healthcare system is overwhelmed by the multiple crises facing the country. Hospitals were laying off staff prior to the Beirut blast[61] and the blast damaged a number of hospitals, leaving some inoperable[62]. The economic crisis has put additional strain on the public healthcare system, with many Lebanese unable to afford private healthcare, and many unable to afford preventative healthcare.
State protection
·The LAF has benefitted from a high level of trust in the past, and remains one of the most representative branches of government[63]. Arab Barometer polls from 2019 showed that 87 percent of the population trusted the LAF, compared to 48 percent that trusted the police. The leadership of the LAF tends towards Maronite Christian generals (in counter-balance to the Sunni-led ISF and the Shia-led Directorate of General Security).
·The ISF is Lebanon’s police and security body, tasked with maintaining public order and counter-terrorism. It has approximately 40,000 personnel which operate from stations dotted around the country. While nominally a non-sectarian organisation, the ISF is headed by a Sunni[64].
·Non-state actors, often with political affiliations, are taking an increasingly prominent role in local security. The ICG notes that a ‘mosaic of local security arrangements is forming as municipal police and political party activists join with commercial providers and resident volunteers to keep neighbourhoods and villages safe[65].
[55] 'Beirut Blast Hit 3 Disparate Neighbourhoods. Now They’re United in Rage.', New York Times, The, 09 August 2020,;'Corruption in the Middle East & North Africa', Transparency
[56] 'Lebanon: Direct COVID-19 Assistance to Hardest Hit', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 08 April 2020.
[57] 'Visit to Lebanon. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Olivier De Schutter', United Nations Human Rights Council, 11 April 2022, p.15. See also: 'Lebanon: Rising Poverty, Hunger Amid Economic Crisis', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 12 December 2022. 'LEBANON: GOVERNMENT MUST ENSURE MEDICATION IS AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE', Amnesty International, 09 February 2023,
[58] “Don’t Punish Me for Who I Am”: Systemic Discrimination Against Transgender Women in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch (HRW), 03 September 2019, p.8. Lebanon Country Information Report, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 March 2019, paragraphs 2.17-2.18
[60] ''You have no one but us': Lebanon’s political elite resurrected amid coronavirus crisis', Middle
[61]'The lights go out on Lebanon’s economy as financial collapse accelerates', Washington Post, The,
[62] ‘Coronavirus is Pushing Lebanon Over the Brink’ Foreign Policy, 08 October 2020
[63] ‘A year Into mass protests, Lebanon’s leaders must finally take action against corruption’ Transparency International 26 October 2020
[64] Lebanon Country Information Report, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 March 2019,
[65] 'Lebanon: Fending Off Threats from Within and Without', International Crisis Group (ICG), 27

[Village 1], Akkar Governate of Lebanon

Location, geographical features, river systems

Various sources[66] set out the following:

·Lebanon is bordered in the north by Syria and in the south by Israel.
·Various population centres in Lebanon are built around major Islamic and Christian religions. Roughly the population of Lebanon is Sunni Muslim 32%, Shiite Muslim 31%, Christian almost 33% with Druze and other being almost 5%.
·The north-east of Lebanon is almost exclusive Sunni with small enclaves of predominantly Christian groupings.
·The village of [Village 1] is located in the [specified part] of Akkar region approximately [number] kilometres from Halba, the capital of Akkar. [Village 1] is approximately [number] kilometres from Beirut, the capital of Lebanon.
·[Details of named River redacted][67].
·The Tribunal was unable to locate anything specific re accessibility or fishing in the [named] River. There were a few ‘traveller’ type articles which confirmed that Lebanon has no shortage of spots for fishing along the coastline, but these did not mention the Akkar region or [named] River directly.
·Lebanon’s river system has been spoilt by commercial overfishing[68], stocks are depleted and the numbers of persons who engage in spearfishing has dramatically reduced over the last decade.
[66] [Source redacted]
[68] Lebanon's spearfishers fight to preserve stocks | The Times of Israel

At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal invited the solicitor for the applicant to make oral submissions. The solicitor advised the Tribunal of the following:

·The applicant has travelled to Australia to see family and shown respect on 3 or 4 occasions, once with his family and always adhered to relevant visa conditions.
·He has had the opportunity to lawfully migrate to Australia on many occasions in the past as have many members of his family.
·He generally enjoyed a peaceful and comfortable life in Lebanon and wishes to return to it.
·Except for the spearfishing incident he would not have left Lebanon.
·He has been in Australia for 8 years absent his family.
·His son has grown from a boy to a man and he has not seen him.
·He left his family because he felt under threat.
·There is a link between the individual [Mr B] leaving the LAF in 2006, joining Hezbollah and the spearfishing incident of 2014. The link is the known Antiochian Christianity of the applicant, his detestation of Hezbollah and his insulting language to others about that organisation inclusive of its leadership.
·Hezbollah has access to all important military and security agencies in Lebanon.
·People in Lebanon without WASTA or not Shiite Islam cannot and should not be critical of Hezbollah. Criticism in those circumstances (without authority) will result in adverse consequences. CI supports this analysis.
·Motivation as to the factors leading to the spearfishing incident is open to speculation. The 4 men approached the applicant by name. They knew him. The only plausible explanation is that someone informed Hezbollah of his views and perhaps remarks whilst in the LAF, Hezbollah felt threatened by his behaviour and arranged or sanctioned the incident.
·If the Tribunal accepts the applicant was accosted in the spearfishing incident it must accept the genesis of the incident or the causative factor leading to the incident was the anti-Hezbollah views held and sometimes or occasionally articulated by the applicant. Those views were in turn relayed to Hezbollah by its loyal foot-soldier a [Mr B], a Shiite Islamic adherent and in turn former colleague of the applicant in the LAF.

At the conclusion of the hearing on 25 May 2023 the Tribunal advised the applicant and his solicitor it was willing to accept further written submissions that addressed 4 issues as follows:

·Delays in Travel and Protection Visa Application

·Complementary Protection
·Technical Qualifications
·Ministerial Intervention (MI)

On 8 June 2023 the applicant provided[69] further post hearing[70] written submissions[71] that addressed each of the issues set out in paragraph 30 above. The Tribunal provides the following summary:

[69] Document ID number 11149868

[70] The Tribunal notes the written submissions that address delays in travel and protection visa application are largely consistent with the oral evidence of the applicant. See paragraph 25 above.

[71] The Tribunal notes the applicant advised “…we wish to thank the Senior Member for the opportunity to address the items above and we wish to thank the Senior Member for their patience during a very lengthy Tribunal hearing.” See Document ID number 11149868 page 2.

Delays in Travel and Protection Visa Application

oWith respect to the delay between the Review Applicant’s Visitor (Subclass 600) visa grant (August 2014) and travel to Australia ([in] November 2014) [the first delay] the finding of the delegate lacked compassion. There was a valid reason for the delay, this being the family of the applicant. Because of the spearfishing incident the applicant needed to be extra cautious to ensure his family was safe and adequately protected. This first delay should not cast doubt on his fear of persecution.
oThe Tribunal has considered this submission. The Tribunal notes the applicant took a lengthy period of time to ensure his family was safe before departing to Australia. This concern is natural, is confirmed by his extensive period of service to the LAF wherein he voluntarily put his own life in danger as part of his career service and is further buttressed by the extensive financial support the applicant provides to his family in Lebanon whilst he has resided in Australia.
oWith respect to the delay between the Review Applicant’s arrival to Australia ([in] November 2014) and Protection (Subclass 866) visa application lodgement (30 March 2015) [the second delay]notwithstanding the dicta in Subramaniam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[72] each case must turn on its own facts. Upon arrival in Australia the applicant had not ben aware of the law with respect to protection visas. He approached a number of law firms. Their fees were excessive. He could not afford their services. The predecessor law firm of Sabelberg Morcos Lawyers was one of the few Victorian firms that were on board with IAAAS in 2015. File documents indicate that the Review Applicant was referred to Sabelberg Morcos Lawyers on 02 March 2015 from the ASRC through IAAAS. The office of Sabelberg Morcos Lawyers prepared the applicant’s application for a Protection visa and the application was lodged on 30 March 2015.
[72] [1998] FCA 305,
oThe Tribunal has considered these submissions. In the context of this case the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for both instances of delay. The Tribunal does not make any adverse finding against the applicant under this heading.

Complementary Protection

oIf a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in section 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection 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 the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: section 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
o‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in section 36(2A).
oThere are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: section 36(2B) of the Act.
oThe applicant provided written submissions[73] now summarised by the Tribunal that addressed Lebanon’s security situation, Hezbollah influence, Unlawful or politically motivated killing, and State Protection. In summary the applicant submitted the security situation in Lebanon is highly unpredictable, there is an ongoing economic crisis with political and religious tensions, civil unrest is unpredictable, antigovernment protests are volatile, Hezbollah is not a part of the Lebanese government yet remains the most influential political organisation, Hezbollah strengthens its structure and influence by closely monitoring state and non-state institutions, Hezbollah unit 900 has agents and delegates among the employees in the Lebanese state’s military, security and civil administration, institutions under monitor include universities, schools, theatres, media channels, international airport and seaports, his profile as a Christian, ex-militant, who expressly objects to the organization’s ideals and operation being made known by the organization is therefore not far-reaching, Hezbollah strong presence at the airport is not to track down dissidents rather, it is for them to monitor the transportation of weapons, money, smuggled goods and money-laundering activities to fund their operations, it is asserted that it was the applicant profile as an ex-militant serving for more than two decades in [the military] and his political opinion that would attract violent acts from the party that he detests, this is evident in the fact that the masked men knew who he was, that he served in the military and his personal information, the applicant cannot obtain state protection because of Hezbollah’s strong influence and the inability of the government to hold them accountable for any misconduct or violations of human rights.
[73] Document ID number 11149868 pages 3 to 7 with appropriate citations relating to DFAT, Lebanon Country Brief, Lina Khatib, How Hezbollah holds sway over the Lebanese state, June 2021, Middle East and North Africa Programme Research Paper, Chatham House, US Department of State, 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Lebanon,

·Technical Qualifications
oThe applicant advised[74] that during his service in the LAF, he had acquired a number of skills that qualified him to work in the [special forces unit]. He is considerably competent at air rescue from a helicopter, scuba diving and first-aid.

·Ministerial Intervention
oThe applicant provided detail of employment in Australia, a relatively peaceful co-existence within the Lebanese community in Victoria, and sought MI on the basis of his employment and the nature of the support that he is providing to his family overseas which he would not be able to replicate if returned to Lebanon being within the territory of Hezbollah.
oThe applicant provided detail of relevant compassionate circumstances tht warrant MI.
oThe applicant provided detail of exceptional economic, scientific, cultural or other benefit that would result from the applicant being permitted to remain in Australia. This detail comprehended the applicant provides a service [to his employer, the contracting industry and the wider community] and possesses a level of skill and knowledge that would not be easily replace.

·In summary the applicant submitted he would face serious harm serious harm, should his application be unsuccessful. Without limiting what is serious harm the applicant submitted he faced threats to his life; significant physical harassment; significant physical ill-treatment; significant economic hardship that threatens his/his family’s capacity to subsist; denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens his / his family’s capacity to subsist; denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens his / his family’s capacity to subsist.
[74] In addition see paragraph 26 above

Analysis and Findings s36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

The Tribunal addresses both Refugee Protection and Complementary Protection (CP) in this section of the decision record.
Refugee Protection s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act
The applicant has provided a significant amount of written material, written submissions, post interview submissions, pre-hearing submissions, post-hearing submissions and evidence to the Tribunal. His narrative has been generally consistent over time.
Any inconsistencies did not go to the heart of his core reason for seeking protection and are readily understood in the context of time, less than exact memory as the years march on, and language difficulties caused by some unfamiliarity with the English language necessitating the interview processes and direct evidence to the Tribunal to be a lengthy experience sometimes made somewhat difficult by cultural misunderstandings.[75]
[75] In addition see footnote 70 above.
There is no evidence the applicant was ever engaged in any political activity in his home country of Lebanon. There is no evidence the applicant was ever involved at any level in any political party in Lebanon. There is no evidence the applicant held elected office or executive office of any political party in Lebanon. There is no evidence the applicant was ever a member of any political party in Lebanon. There is no evidence the applicant was ever affiliated or involved even on the periphery of any political party, political organisation or political movement in Lebanon.
There is no evidence the applicant has been engaged in any political activity in Australia since 2015 until the present time.
The applicant repeatedly advised the Tribunal that whilst a member of the LAF it was a basic prohibition to engage in political discourse of political activity of any kind. This is because engaging in political discourse in a country riven by religious, sectarian, political, ideological and philosophical differences would challenge the fundamental needs of a fighting force. These being unity, commitment, solidarity and absolute respect for the chain of command. The suggestion of political discourse or political division in a fighting unit would result in an inquiry and punishment. Hence any political commentary, political discourse or the like initiated by the applicant or followed by the applicant was absolutely minimal and certainly not regular or continuing.
Any serious political organisation, and Hezbollah is a serious political organisation, would be aware of its detractors and others who have a healthy dislike for its role and activities. The Tribunal has serious doubts an organisation as large and influential as Hezbollah would have the serious level of interest in a person like the applicant that would warrant his murder because of hearsay commentary made on 1 or 2 occasions many years prior to 2014. The Tribunal has strong doubts the occasional and rare reference over a period of [number] years’ service in the LAF to his dislike of Hezbollah or its then leadership amounts to political opinion as set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act.
The applicant is a highly trained, technically proficient, battle experienced long serving special forces soldier who rose through the ranks of the LAF holding senior non-commissioned officer positions at command level. He is a potentially difficult opponent or enemy who was trained to defend himself and those under his command. In Lebanon the applicant as a practising Antiochian Christian lived in a small village surrounded by village people of the same faith and community and immediately outside his village was similarly surrounded by many people of the same faith and community. CI suggests there were few if any Shiite Islam enclaves near his village. It is certain Hezbollah men control the Beka Valley across the mountains from his geographic area. He shifted his family back to his village some two or three days after the spearfishing incident. Even in 2015 it would have been a major exercise for Hezbollah to plan, organise, and carry out the threats as outlined by the applicant in the spearfishing incident in an area they did not control. The Tribunal suspects Hezbollah in the years around 2015 may have had more demanding and immediate work for its trained operatives that would have taken precedence over a revenge killing against a former member of the LAF.
The core ground[76] for seeking protection is that the applicant believes in August 2015 near a river approximately [number] kilometres from his home he was accosted by 4 armed men wearing masks and dark coloured (he believes) uniforms that made them men of Hezbollah. These men threatened the applicant to such an extent he was put in fear of his life. He does not believe they were accosting him to get him to join Hezbollah but accosted him because they believed he had expressed anti Hezbollah views and had been disrespectful of Hezbollah leadership whilst he was a member of the LAF prior to 2006 when he had on occasion expressed these views in the company of other LAF members who were of the Shiite Islam faith whilst he was a known Antiochian Christian. He identified by name one particular person whom he has not seen since this individual left the LAF in 2006 and the applicant believes this individual joined Hezbollah and is the source of the unfavourable and arguably later life threating behaviour by the 4 men.
[76] For particulars see paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 24 at 2^nd dot point and 25 under heading Spearfishing Incident above. For particulars relating to persecution see inter alia paragraph 19(2)(f) above.
The Tribunal is troubled by this narrative. It lacks any corroboration[77] or verification.
[77] The Tribunal is, of course, bound by the findings of superior courts and follows the dicta reasoning as set out in paragraph 17 dot point 5 above as found in Mohamed v MIMA (1998) 83 FCR 234, [1998] per Hill J.
The applicant failed to seek assistance or protection by way of approaching church elders, village elders, or former leadership in the LAF who according to the applicant and conformed by CI have a working relationship with Hezbollah necessitated by events in Lebanon.
The applicant told the Tribunal after a period of two or three days he returned his family to their home in their village in Lebanon because it was safe for them. The Tribunal notes there is no evidence that suggests the applicant’s family was under any threat. However it is odd that the applicant would remain living with his family in his home in his village in Lebanon and consider it so safe after the threat that he did not leave his home country for almost two months.
It is correct to observe the applicant had visited Australia to see family on 4 occasions prior to 2015 and on each occasion adhered to visa conditions. On this occasion the applicant lodged an Application for a Holiday Visa[78] to come to Australia 5 days prior to the spearfishing incident. He then took a considerable period before departing for Australia when he believed his life was in immediate danger and upon arrival in Australia took a lengthy period before lodging his Application for a Protection Visa[79]. Since his arrival in Australia he had been engaged in well-paid work[80] and sends large remittances[81] to his family in Lebanon who would otherwise most likely be destitute and reliant on extant family support or charity[82] if available.
[78] See paragraph 12 above.
[79] For findings on this point see paragraph 13 above.
[80] For particulars see paragraph 22 above
[81] For particulars see paragraph 22 above and paragraph 25 under heading Family, remittances and assets
[82] For particulars see CI at paragraph 26 under heading Welfare and social services
Having set out the above concerns the Tribunal is also aware that CI advises Hezbollah is a political organisation with absolute control of major areas of Lebanon, a military organisation with tens of thousands of soldiers recruited heavily from the Beka Valley and South of Lebanon, a welfare organisation that provides some essential services to persons who live in areas under its control, an employment arranging organisation that arranges employment on the basis of reward, favouritism, loyalty and preferment and a terrorist organisation that actively engages in murderous reprisals both inside Lebanon against those it considers its enemy and in battlefields outside the borders of Lebanon.
The early years of the 21st century were times of warfare generally in the middle east and more particularly in the border areas of Lebanon. Hezbollah played a prominent and public role in many of those wars and like activities. The applicant saw combat in Lebanon in these years.
The Tribunal is unable to conclude the applicant did not engage in such discourse that created an enmity of such significance that Hezbollah deemed it appropriate in 2015 to authorise the events as outlined by the applicant and summarised above generally under the heading of spearfishing incident.
At time of decision it is almost a decade since the spearfishing incident occurred in August 2014. The applicant did not provide any written submissions or give evidence there was a reoccurrence of the events of August 2014 at any time up to November 2014 when the applicant departed Lebanon for Australia. Thee is no evidence Hezbollah has maintained any interest in the applicant since the time of the spearfishing incident.
This is odd. Hezbollah is a well-organised, well-structured disciplined fighting force. Lines of command do exist. There is no evidence before the Tribunal and CI does not outline any instances of rogue behaviour by elements of Hezbollah. Quite the opposite. Political work is carried out for a political purpose. This may and often does involve the use of violence and terror.
If the language of the applicant whilst a member of the LAF prior to 2006 was so offensive to Hezbollah in the years prior to his resignation from the LAF Hezbollah had opportunity, proximity and capability to extract revenge in Lebanon on repeated occasions. Hezbollah did not do so.
According to the applicant Hezbollah or its agents waited until 2014, 4 years after he resigned from the LAF, somewhere up to 8 years after 2006 when he is said to have committed the offence to the named individual who left the LAF in 2006 and served with the applicant from 1998 until 2006 and prior to November 2014 when he lived with his family in a small village in Lebanon. At any time from 1998 until 2014 Hezbollah, if it was of a mind had the opportunity to extract revenge upon the applicant. Hezbollah did not do so in these years. There is no evidence Hezbollah even made a threat during this lengthy period of time.
The applicant has carried out his life working and living in the Lebanese community In Australia. He has supported his family from afar. He did not give evidence to the Tribunal of recurring or continuing or new threats of himself to his family or anyone else in Lebanon. The Tribunal considers it most unlikely and inherently implausible that Hezbollah has any current interest in the applicant for the unwise use of words (however described and however strong and however unnecessary) that occurred sometime prior to 2006.
In this review application the applicant’s view as to Hezbollah and its then leadership were expressed rarely and when expressed in private conversation with one person or in a small group. For reasons advanced by the applicant in evidence those views were not otherwise expressed in the LAF or in other forums. The views were not anti-government or anti-state or anti-agency of any Lebanese government department. The views were expressed in relation to a non-state actor who is not a part of government, although such non-state actor brings influence to bear on government and in many respects acts as a de facto government in parts of Lebanon. Political opinion as summarised in the Guide to Refugee Law in Australia refers to activity that is directed against government or the state. Paragraph 86 at page 45 of that Guide notes the following:
·“In determining[83] whether a political offender can be considered a refugee, regard should also be had to the following elements; personality of the applicant, his political opinion, the motive behind the act, the nature of the act committed, the nature of the prosecution and its motives; finally, also, the nature of the law on which the prosecution is based…”
[83] The Tribunal notes paragraph 86 cited above was cited with approval in Welivita v MIEA (Federal Court of Australia, Lindgren J. 18 November 1996).
The Tribunal is of the view a sentiment as to a non-state actor expressed in private to one person or a small group and not repeated otherwise or outside that occasion does not amount to a political opinion within the meaning of s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and his claims do not have a credible basis.
The Tribunal finds there is little chance that he will be harmed for any of the reasons he has claimed either on an individual basis or in aggregation. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance he would be persecuted for any of the reasons outlined in s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are grounds the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real chance the applicant will be persecuted.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under section 36(2)(a). Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criteria, the Tribunal now turns to consider the alternative complementary protection criteria.
Complementary Protection s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act
The Tribunal now turns to consideration of CP. The wording of s 36(2)(aa) is different to that in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act. S 36(2)(aa) is not limited to the 5 core criteria of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
S 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act refers to the fact 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.
Each review application is a standalone matter. In each review application what is required will depend on the particular facts and the reasoning of the decision-maker.[84] In assessing the risk of harm the Tribunal is required to have regard to “substantial grounds for believing” that as a “necessary and foreseeable consequence” of the non-citizen being removed from Australia there is a “real risk” that the non-citizen will face significant harm.
[84] See cases cited at footnote 15 para 10-6 of chapter 10 of A Guide to Refugee Law in Australia.
In this review application the applicant has fled his home country, left his family alone without his protection and provides extensive financial support to them gained from his employment in Australia.
In Australia he has the comfort of extended family, the guarantee of well paid work, a high income and a relatively peaceful life within the Lebanese community in Victoria.
Unlike the many occasions prior to 2015 when he visited Australia this time he has chosen to remain in Australia. The reasons for his continuing residence in Australia are sprinkled throughout this decision record.
The applicant has fled his own country and seeks a new life in Australia. He has been consistent in his narrative. He claims he was the subject of deliberate attack that causes him to fear for his life. The reason for the attack was he says his much earlier recitation of anti-Hezbollah sentiment whilst an active member of the LAF.
There may be some grand plan attached to this review application involving leaving family alone at home in a country falling apart, seeking permanent residence at the other end of the world, gaining well-paid and arguably enriching employment in Australia and funding his family in Lebanon to a standard of living not currently otherwise possible in that country because of ongoing major economic dislocation.
The Tribunal has given consideration to this scenario.
The applicant’s life has been one of service. Service to immediate and extended family. Service to the armed forces of his country. Service in a most dangerous vocation. Service to his country. Service whilst in the LAF by attention to restrictions and strictures as to non-engagement in political activity. Service to his faith as an active member and participant of his particular community. That life of service is unusual. It shows a man of character and responsibility. Such men do not leave their family in a desperate situation without good reason.
In a somewhat difficult hearing the applicant gave evidence in a consistent, coherent and informed manner. When he did not know the answer to a Tribunal question or did not have a response to a Tribunal line of argument he simply said so. He did not cover-up, prevaricate or obfuscate. His evidence was consistent with his written submissions. His narrative was consistent over time. The Tribunal closely observed the applicant as he gave evidence.
The Tribunal finds the applicant was a credible witness who gave truthful responses. The Tribunal gives considerable weight to his evidence.
It appears the Tribunal has two options. Accept the veracity of his narrative as to the detail of the spearfishing incident or make a finding the incident did not occur at all and the subsequent narrative was perhaps manufactured for the reasons outlined in paragraph 63 above or otherwise.
On occasion a narrative that appears flimsy or without foundation does have a truth about it. These occasions are rare. At first glance the spearfishing incident appears unlikely. It would be easy to conclude it did not occur. If this is the case the Tribunal would ordinarily expect to find many inconsistencies, perhaps untruths, or inexplicable explanations for particular events. In short a lack of plausibility as to a particular narrative. This Is not the case in this review application.
The Tribunal still has doubts that Hezbollah maintains any interest in the applicant so many years approaching decades after the time of the then perhaps unwise commentary. The Tribunal suspects Hezbollah and its various arms have more pressing issues in Lebanon and the wider middle-east to address.
In this review application the substantial grounds amount to the service as outlined earlier in this decision record at paragraph 65 above. The necessary and foreseeable consequence amounts to a repetition of the spearfishing incident simply because the applicant will be at home and if found once can be found twice. The real risk is that Hezbollah or its agents or wildcard activists are not as logical and rational in their approach to political disputation and settlement as the Tribunal has given them credit.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicant does satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(aa) for a protection visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Mark Bishop
Senior Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

International, 10 December 2019,;'Lebanon, the Sectarian Identity Test Lab',
Century Foundation (United States), 10 April 2019, 20201110123804; ''You have no one but us':
Lebanon’s political elite resurrected amid coronavirus crisis',
Middle East Eye, 31 March 2020,

'Poverty Targeting is not the Solution for Much Needed Social Policy', Lebanese
Center for Policy Studies, March 2020. See also: 'Social Protection in Lebanon,
From a Gender Perspective', UN Women, 16 June 2022, pp.6-7,

East Eye, 31March 2020,

20 July 2020.

pp 36-37

January 2022.. See also: 'The Akkar civilians who serve as
nighttime vigilantes', L’Orient le Jour (L’Orient Today), 02 March 2022. 'Conflict
Analysis – Lebanon', Center for Operational Analysis and Research (COAR), November 2021, p.15,
'As Lebanon unravels, Beirut neighbourhood takes security into its own hands', Al
Monitor, 17 December 2022.'Beirut 'neighbourhood watch' echoes troubled past', Reuters, 29 November 2022.

[2023] AATA 2887

20 June 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies