1935949 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 940

1935949 (Refugee) [2024] ARTA 940 (4 December 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Ms Katrina Feghali (MARN: 1174363)
Respondent:Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1935949
Tribunal:Deputy President S Roushan
Date:4 December 2024

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:
·s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 04 December 2024 at 1:51pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – particular social group – women in Lebanon – family violence – subjected to physical, emotional and economic abuse – husband agreed to divorce if she forfeited her dowry and contact with her children – arranged to see children secretly – ex-husband powerfully connected and affiliated with Hezbollah – gender-based violence is prevalent – Israeli airstrike events in Lebanon make relocation more challenging – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J–5LA, 36, 65, 369, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND

The applicant, who was born in [year], is a national of Lebanon. She arrived in Australia [in] February 2017 on a Visitor visa and applied for a Protection visa on 22 March 2017.
On 18 December 2019, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
This decision and statement of reasons is a review of the delegate’s decision by the Tribunal.
Evidence before the Department
Protection visa application
According to her Protection visa application, the applicant, a Shi’a Muslim, was born in [City 1], Lebanon. She married her ex-husband, [Partner A], in 1997 and they were divorced in 2011. She has two children from that marriage, born in [years]. The applicant’s children and her father reside in Lebanon. Her mother and [siblings] all reside in Australia.
In response to questions in the application form in relation to her reasons for claiming protection, the applicant referred to a statement attached to her application form. In that statement, the applicant made the following claims.
She was born in a Shi’a Muslim family in [City 1], Lebanon. Her father, [stepmothers and] step-siblings reside in Lebanon. Her mother, who is divorced from her father, is an Australian citizen and lives in [City 2]. Her [‘maternal siblings’] are also Australian citizens and reside in Australia.
Her marriage to [Partner A] was arranged when she was [age] years old. She had two children from that marriage. During the marriage, she was subjected to ‘frequent physical and emotional and economic abuse.’ Due to the life threatening ‘escalating physical abuse’, she decided to separate from her husband, and they were divorced in November 2011.
Her husband agreed to divorce her on the condition that she would forfeit her dowry and that she would not have any contact with her children. She ‘reluctantly’ agreed to these conditions in order to ‘get out of an extremely violent marital relationship’ and to ‘save [her] very life.’
In the two years prior to her departure from Lebanon, she arranged to see her children secretly without their father's consent. If their father were to discover these visits, he would harm her and her children.
Under Shi'a religious laws, the father is granted sole custody of the children. She has no legal recourse allowing her to have any ‘legal contact’ with her children. [Partner A] continues to threaten to kill her even if she tried to see her children. He is ‘a party affiliate with Hezbollah’ and is a ‘very powerfully connected man in Lebanon with the organization.’ She feared for her life every time she arranged to secretly see her children.
She promised her children before she departed Lebanon that she would not abandon them and would ‘save them from their predicament by sponsoring them to [come to] Australia. Her ‘mental health has severely deteriorated’ since her divorce, primarily because she has been prevented from having contact with her children. It is not possible for her to be reunited with her children in Lebanon due to [Partner A’s] ‘threats of physical violence.’
If she were to return to Lebanon and continue to ‘risk’ seeing her children, [Partner A] would act on his threats to harm her. He is ‘well-connected’ and as the authorities would not protect her as a Shi'a woman.
The interview
The applicant attended an interview with a delegate of the Minister on 3 December 2019. She was assisted by an interpreter in Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence at the interview is referred to in the Tribunal’s analysis below.
The delegate’s decision
The delegate found that the applicant’s ex-husband had not harmed her during the eight years that they both lived in Beirut following their divorce. Throughout that time the applicant also had ongoing contact with her children without experiencing harm. The delegate found the applicant’s claim that [Partner A] was or would be motivated to kill her and the children due to contact visits facilitated by relatives and a neighbour not to be credible. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in Lebanon. She was not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee, as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act. She was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Lebanon, there was a real risk she would suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Review application
On 20 December 2019, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision. She was represented in relation to the review by Ms Katrina Feghali.
Pre-hearing submissions
On 9 September 2024, Ms Feghali submitted Statutory Declarations, declared by the applicant and [Partner B], a letter of support from Ms [A] and copies of vocational training qualifications obtained by the applicant in Australia.
In her Statutory Declaration, the applicant provided the following information.
She is currently in a de-facto relationship with [Partner B], an Australian citizen and a non-practicing Christian.
Her father has remarried and currently resides in [Country 1] and her [child, Child A] lives and works in [Country 2]. She is in regular contact with [Child A].
She comes from [City 1], ‘an extremely religious area of Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah. The majority of [City 1’s] population is Shi'a. He ex-husband ‘is a very extreme and well connected man and is affiliated with Hezbollah.’
Her [other child, Child B] continues to reside with [his/her] father. She contacts [Child B] secretly when [Partner A] is not around. She fears being killed by [Partner A] if she were to attempt to make contact with [Child B].
She has not seen her children for over eight years and her ‘heart is completely broken’ because she was not able to keep her promise and bring them to Australia to reside with her. Her mental health has ‘severely deteriorated’ due to being apart from her children.
She fears that [Partner A] would be further infuriated if he were to find out that she is in a de-facto relationship with a Christian man and living with him out of wedlock. Her situation would bring ‘extreme shame upon him’ and she fears being killed for this reason. He is ‘a very controlling and violent man’ who subjected her to ‘frequent physical, emotional and economic abuse.’ The Lebanese authorities are unable and unwilling to protect her against the harm she fears.
Over the past eight years, she has ‘adopted the Australian way of life’, living ‘a very free and open lifestyle.’ She is independent and does not wear the hijab. She has no support in Lebanon as her ‘parents and siblings’ all reside outside of Lebanon. She has no contact with her stepparents and half siblings in Lebanon.
If she were to return to Lebanon, she has nowhere to live as she does not have a house or any immediate relatives who would offer her support or protection. She would be unable to find ‘meaningful employment’ in Lebanon ‘due to the current economic situation.’ Lebanon is currently facing ‘the most serious financial crisis in history, which has crippled the economy, with the country's banking system paralysed with an increasing shortage of medicines and food.’
Her fears are exacerbated by the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Hezbollah’s involvement, which may result in Lebanon becoming embroiled in the conflict, bringing ‘needless destruction and death upon the Lebanese people and expose me to significant harm as a Lebanese citizen and a Shiite Muslim.’
In his Statutory Declaration, [Partner B] stated that he was born in [Country 3] ‘into the Christian faith’. He is an Australian citizen. She has known the applicant since 2018 and they entered into a relationship in 2019. They commenced living together ‘in a de-facto relationship’ in February 2023. He is aware of her past experiences at the hands of [Partner A] and the pain she suffers as a result of not seeing her children. Her fears are now further exacerbated due to the fact that she is in a de-facto relationship with a Christian man. He will not allow the applicant to return to Lebanon due to the risk of harm from her husband. She has no family or support in Lebanon, and she fears the current economic and political instability in Lebanon. He would not be able to offer her financial support in order to buy a house or rent a property as they are ‘struggling to survive in Australia financially due to high cost of living.’
In her letter, Ms [A] noted that the applicant has been [in Occupation 1] over the past two years and praised the applicant’s personal qualities and the support she has provided her.
The hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 September 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Partner B]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. The representative also attended the Tribunal hearing. The relevant aspects of the applicant’s evidence are referred to in the reasons below.
Post-hearing submissions
On 26 September 2024, Ms Feghali forwarded to the Tribunal a further Statutory Declaration by the applicant, as well as photographic images in news reports in relation to the impact of Israeli strikes on Lebanon.
In her Statutory Declaration, the applicant provided the following additional information.
After she was divorced from [Partner A], he continued to threaten her through her father and neighbours ‘as he was not satisfied with the divorce as this brought shame upon him.’
[Partner A] ‘will continue to threaten’ her as she is now in a de-facto relationship with [Partner B] who is a Christian. This will bring ‘further enormous shame’ upon [Partner A]. She believes [Partner A] wants her back ‘just to assert his control over [her] and to harm [her].’
[Partner A] would also continue to threaten her if he were to become aware that she has been in contact with [Child B], who resides with him in Lebanon. She has not seen her children in over eight years due to her genuine fear of [Partner A]. Her mental health has ‘severely deteriorated’ as she only thinks about her children and her inability to be with them. In a recent phone call, [Child A] pleaded with her not to return to Lebanon as [he/she] is aware of the danger posed by [Partner A], as well due to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
After their divorce, [Partner A] was not aware that she was secretly seeing her children. She did not suffer harm as she ‘took drastic measures to avoid contact with [her] ex-husband.’ Her family was also still in Lebanon, and they offered her support. She never returned to Lebanon after she came to Australia in 2017 and never gave [Partner A] an opportunity to pursue or harm her.
If she were to return to Lebanon and [Partner A] became aware that she has been in contact with [Child B] and that she is in a de-facto relationship with a Christian man, there is a real chance that he would harm her. She would also want to see [Child B] if she were to go back, which would expose her to risk of harm. Her father has now departed Lebanon and she would have ‘no form of male support’, making her more vulnerable and susceptible to harm. She would have nowhere to live as she does not have a house or any immediate relatives to offer her support or protection.
In addition, she would be ‘precluded from finding meaningful employment in Lebanon due to the current economic situation.’ Lebanon is currently facing ‘the most serious financial crisis in history, which has crippled the economy, with the country's banking system paralysed with an increasing shortage of medicines and food.’ She would not be able to rely on any form of support from the government as the country is ‘completely crippled’ and she would be forced into homelessness.
Since the hearing, the situation in Lebanon has further deteriorated. The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has intensified and ‘it has now spilled out throughout parts of Lebanon’, resulting in over 569 deaths, including 50 children. The conflict would expose to her ‘to significant harm as a Lebanese citizen and a Shiite Muslim.’
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The relevant law
The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). 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) of the Act. 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) of the Act, 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–5LA of the Act, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Analysis, reasons and findings
For the following reasons, I have concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration.
Family violence
I accept that the applicant is a Shi’a Muslim from [City 1]. I accept that her marriage to [Partner A], also a Shi'a Muslim and deeply religious, was arranged when she was 19 years old. I accept that her marriage to him was marked by continuous abuse and violence. I also accept that the extent and frequency of the abuse was at a level that the applicant was prepared to do anything to escape the harm being inflicted on her by her husband. Indeed, in order to put an end to her predicament and secure her own safety, she sacrificed her dowry, which would have ensured a level of financial independence following the divorce. More importantly, she accepted [Partner A’s] terms that prevented her from maintaining contact with her children. The fact that she was willing to agree to such extreme conditions, particularly regarding access to her children underscores [Partner A’s] cruelty, the oppressive and untenable nature of her situation and the coercive dynamics of her relationship with her ex-husband.
In her evidence to the Department and the Tribunal, the applicant claimed that she remains fearful of [Partner A], who had felt ashamed by the divorce, had made threats against her in the past, is still unmarried, and continues to desire remarrying the applicant. The applicant also claimed that, if [Partner A] were to become aware that she is in a de-facto relationship and living with a Christian man in Australia, he would experience heightened anger and a deeper sense of shame, prompting him to harm her.
However, as I put to her at the hearing, her evidence did not suggest that [Partner A] had ever acted on his threats, had harmed her in any other way or had made any attempts to coerce her into remarrying him the period following her divorce in 2011 and her departure for Australia in February 2017. During that period, she had also succeeded in seeing her children from time to time, albeit without [Partner A’s] knowledge. In her explanations, the applicant stated that during that time she had avoided any contact with her ex-husband. She had also resided with her father in Beirut and had the benefit of his support and protection. Her father has now relocated to [Country 1] with his wife, and she has no close male family members in Lebanon to provide her with any support if she were to return. I accept this evidence.

I also accept that in the six years that both the applicant and [Partner A] resided in Beirut following their divorce, the applicant was only able to see her children occasionally through secretly arranged rendezvous facilitated by sympathetic neighbours or friends. I accept that if [Partner A] had become aware of these breaches of the terms of their divorce agreement, he would have taken steps to punish the applicant. I further accept that the applicant is now in a genuine de-facto relationship with [Partner B] and that if [Partner A] were to find out, he would respond with rage. Moreover, [Child B] continues to reside with him in Lebanon. I find that if the applicant were to return to Lebanon, she would seek to contact and see [Child B], increasing the probability of [Partner A] become aware of her return and increasing the prospects of her encountering him.
As I have noted in two previous decisions,[1] the country information sources suggest that gender-based violence (GBV) is a pervasive problem in Lebanon. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has noted ‘[a]n average of 1 in 2 persons reported that they personally know someone subjected to domestic violence, with 65% of reported incidents being committed by family members and 71% taking place on [sic] the perpetrator’s household’.[2] In conservative sectors of society, men can exercise considerable control over female relatives including restricting their activities outside the home.[3] In 2008, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women expressed concerns about ‘the persistence of violence against women and girls, including domestic violence, rape and crimes committed in the name of honour’.[4]
[1] 2300705 (unpublished, 9 September 2024) and 2002782 (unpublished, 5 December 2023).
[2] Cited in Gender-based Violence in Lebanon: Inadequate Framework, Ineffective Remedies, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), 12 July 2019,
[3] Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022 - Lebanon, United States Department of State, 20 March 2023,
[4] 'Gender-based Violence in Lebanon: Inadequate Framework, Ineffective Remedies', International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), 12 July 2019,
In a 2023 study, UNFPA investigated the effects of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) on women’s health, focussing on Lebanon as the primary context for its research. The study noted that IPV ‘encompasses physical, sexual, emotional, and financial abuse perpetrated by a current or former partner.’[5] The report indicated that occurrence and the impact of IPV can and does persist beyond the end of a relationship, including psychological trauma. Continuation of abusive pattern of behaviour can be instigated by ongoing connections, such as shared children.[6]
[5] Jinan Usta and Afifeh Shatila, Intimate Partner Violence and Health: Can Resilience Mitigate the Effect?, UNFPA, March 2023,
[6] Ibid.
According to her evidence at the hearing, which I accept, the applicant was born in [City 1] and resided there until [age] when she moved to Beirut with her father. Following her marriage to [Partner A] five years later, she returned to [City 1] with him and lived there until her divorce in 2011. She then relocated to the southern suburbs of Beirut (Dahiyeh) to live with her father until her departure for Australia. I find that if the applicant were to return to Lebanon, she would return to Dahiyeh or [City 1]. I accept that [Partner A] resides in Dahiyeh but he continues to have familial and other links to Dahiyeh.
In the circumstances of this case and based on the evidence before me, I am unable to rule out as remote the applicant’s chance of being subjected to harm by [Partner A] in Lebanon. In other words, I am satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would face serious harm, including significant physical harassment if she were to return to Beirut or [City 1]. The applicant’s mother and her biological siblings all reside in Australia. As already noted, her father has relocated to [Country 1] with his [wife] and, other than a [step-sibling] in Beirut and a maternal aunt in [City 1], the applicant has no family support or protection in Lebanon. As a single unskilled woman without meaningful family support in Lebanon, I find that the applicant would be particularly exposed and vulnerable to harm upon returning to Lebanon.
Family violence is a complex pattern of violent and abusive behaviours that seek to isolate, degrade, exploit and control victims. Whilst family violence often takes place between intimate partners, it may extend to former intimate partners. It is also widely acknowledged that women are significantly more likely than men to experience family violence.[7] I find that the nature of the harm that will be inflicted on the applicant by [Partner A] in Lebanon falls within the definition of family violence and the harm is gender-based.
[7] See 1931275 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2662 (30 June 2022), where the Tribunal defined family violence by reference to the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration’s National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book, (updated for 2024).
As already noted, GBV is pervasive and prevalent across Lebanon, with the most common types being domestic violence and intimate partner violence.[8] DFAT has assessed that women in Lebanon face a moderate risk of family and sexual violence and that this risk increases for members of vulnerable communities including those in rural areas and conservative religious groups.[9] Some estimates suggest rates of domestic violence are as high as one in three married women and an estimated one in every two individuals know someone subjected to domestic violence.[10] The country’s significant political and economic crises, coupled with cultural norms that oppress and accept violence against women, have contributed to the prevalence of GBV.[11] Cultural attitudes towards GBV in Lebanon are influenced by traditional norms and societal expectations. Lebanese cultural norms dictate how women may experience violence and how they may react to it. The society’s entrenched patriarchy and the prevalence of toxic masculinity play a significant role in perpetuating GBV. Men are often encouraged to be dominating, aggressive and unemotional, leading to the normalisation of power and control as perpetrators.[12] The normalisation of violence and the lack of accountability for such actions have also contributed to the persistence of GBV in the country.[13] These cultural attitudes present significant obstacles to addressing and preventing GBV in Lebanon.
[8] Gender-Based Violence: Lebanon Secondary Data Review: 2018-2022, Social Development Direct, January 2023,
[9] DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 26 June 2023,
[10] Gender-Based Violence: Lebanon Secondary Data Review: 2018-2022, Social Development Direct, January 2023,
[11] Tessa Fox, Lebanon's economic collapse prompts rise in gender-based violence, The New Humanitarian, See also Lizzy Davis, Burned, suffocated, beaten: why women in Lebanon are dying at the hands of their partners, The Guardian, 27 February 2023,
[12] Rawan Abou Hamzeh and Zainab Msaddi, Lebanon: Gender Inequality and Domestic Violence Reflection on Lebanon's Scenario, Global History Dialogues, August 2022, See also Rayan El Chami, Gender-Based Violence in Lebanon: An Analysis of the Unfair Laws, 14 December 2022,
[13] Tessa Fox, Lebanon's economic collapse prompts rise in gender-based violence, The New Humanitarian,
On the basis of the evidence before me, I find that the essential and significant reason for the harm that will be directed at the applicant is her gender and her membership of the particular social group of women in Lebanon.
Under s 5J(1)(c) of the Act, the real chance of persecution must relate to all areas of the relevant receiving country. I have found that [Partner A] had made threats against the applicant while she resided with her father in Beirut. I have also found that there is a real chance that he would harm the applicant if she were to return to Beirut or [City 1] due to his presence in or links to these areas. However, the applicant did not claim that [Partner A] has made any attempts to locate and communicate with her in Australia over the past seven years. I am not satisfied that, if the applicant were to return to Lebanon now and reside in a different area, such as areas in the north of the country, away from [Partner A], there is a real chance that he would attempt to locate her anywhere in Lebanon in order to harm her. I find that the applicant would have lawful access to safe, habitable areas in Lebanon. I am not satisfied that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant receiving country. Therefore, I find that the applicant does not have a well-funded fear of persecution in Lebanon. She is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Complementary protection
For the same reasons I have found there is a real chance the applicant would face serious harm at the hands of [Partner A] in Beirut or [City 1], I find that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm by [Partner A]. I find that the harm she would be subjected to involves the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, or an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation, such as to meet the definitions of ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ and ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ in s 5(1) Act. I find that the real risk is faced by the applicant personally.
I have considered whether the applicant can internally relocate for the purposes of s 36(2B) of the Act.
In relation to the refugee criteria, I found that the real chance of harm does not relate to all areas of Lebanon. Similarly, I find that if the applicant were to internally relocate, for example to north Lebanon, there is no real risk that she would face significant harm. However, I must also consider if in all the circumstances it would be reasonable for the applicant to internally relocate.
As noted earlier, the applicant is a single unskilled Shi’a woman. She has no meaningful family support or protection anywhere in Lebanon. According to DFAT,
5.17 ... In most cases, Lebanese relocating internally will seek to move either to an area in which their religious group is in the majority, or to a mixed area. This generally means relocating to a major city, particularly Beirut, which also offers more opportunities for employment, access to services, and a greater degree of state protection than other areas of Lebanon. The large-scale influx of Syrian refugees has, however, placed significant pressure in Beirut and elsewhere on the availability and cost of rental accommodation and other services, including employment… Rental prices across Lebanon have soared during the economic crisis, exacerbated by the effects of the Beirut blast that destroyed a number of neighbourhoods, with some tenants having to move or pay a bigger proportion of income to stay in their homes…
5.19 DFAT assesses that the ease with which an individual can relocate internally depends to a large degree on their individual circumstances, including whether they have family or community connections in the intended area of relocation, and their financial situation. Internal relocation is generally easier for men and family groups. Single women, particularly those fleeing family violence, are less likely to have access to sufficient support services and are likely to face societal discrimination in the form of harassment, particularly in rural and more conservative areas…
In addition, the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has had a devastating impact on Lebanon and has significantly contributed to the economic crisis and damaging civilian infrastructure. The sources I have consulted indicate that between 16 September 2024 and 25 October 2024, there were over 3,250 Israeli airstrike events in Lebanon,[14] damaging or destroying over 3,600 buildings.[15] As of early November 2024, over 3,000 fatalities have been reported due to these attacks, with a substantial number being women and children.[16] The airstrikes have also resulted in approximately 1.2 million people, mostly Shi’as, being forcibly displaced from cities, towns and villages as well as neighbourhoods in Beirut.[17] This displacement is stirring fears of renewed sectarian conflict in Lebanon, particularly in Christian areas. Assistance to the displaced often comes down to the will of individual community leaders. While some have accepted displaced people in their villages, others have refused to host displaced Shi'as. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Hosting Shias has made villages and towns in Sunni and Christian areas potential targets of Israeli strikes. In cities such as Beirut and Sidon, some landlords are refusing to rent to Shias, citing security concerns. Tensions also stem from financial distress. The mass displacement, primarily from the south, is putting further strain on local communities in a country that has been battered by an economic crisis and political paralysis.[18]
[14] Ameneh Mehvar, Q&A: Behind the data on the Israel-Hezbollah war, Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), 1 November 2024, Q&A: Behind the data on the Israel-Hezbollah war.
[15] Ahmed Nour and Erwan Rivault, Lebanon: Satellite imagery reveals intensity of Israeli bombing, 25 October 2024, Lebanon: Satellite imagery reveals intensity of Israeli bombing.
[16] Death toll from Israeli attacks on Lebanon surpasses 3,000: Health Ministry, Al-Jazeera, 5 November 2024, Death toll from Israeli attacks on Lebanon surpasses 3,000: Health Ministry | Israel attacks Lebanon News | Al Jazeera.
[17] Ibid. See also Sune Engel Rasmussen and Wael Taleb, Israeli Strikes in Lebanon Stir Fears of Sectarian Strife: Christian communities are wary of letting displaced Shia into their villages after airstrikes, Wall Street Journal, 18 November 2024, Israeli Strikes in Lebanon Stir Fears of Sectarian Strife - WSJ.
[18] Sune Engel Rasmussen and Wael Taleb, Israeli Strikes in Lebanon Stir Fears of Sectarian Strife: Christian communities are wary of letting displaced Shia into their villages after airstrikes, Wall Street Journal, 18 November 2024, Israeli Strikes in Lebanon Stir Fears of Sectarian Strife - WSJ.
I am of the view that that these conditions would make internal relocation even more challenging for the applicant.
Having regard to the applicant’s individual circumstances, I am not satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of Lebanon where there would not be a real risk that she would suffer significant harm.
I also find that, for the purposes of s 36(2B)(b), there is no protection from an authority that reduces the risk of significant harm to less than a real risk. I base this finding on the country information before me, which clearly indicates that despite some progress over the years, the existing laws in Lebanon do not provide adequate protection for victims of GBV. Fatima Shehadeh has observed that ‘gaps in the justice system and limited legal avenues makes gender-based violence of particular concern in Lebanon, often with fatal consequences’.[19] In a 2012 report, Centre of Arab Women for Training and Research expressed the view that the ‘penal code in Lebanon is gender-based constructed, reinforcing discrimination in the concepts themselves and in the penalties. Therefore, gender inequality and [violence against women] can be regarded as virtually institutionalised’.[20]
[19] Fatima Shehadeh, When will violence against Lebanese women get the attention needed?, Raseef22, 22 May 2023,
[20] Centre of Arab Women for Training and Research, Situation Analysis of Gender-based Violence in Lebanon, 2012,
In 2019, the ICJ stated:
[Women’s] access to justice for and protection from GBV is often impeded by obstacles in Lebanon’s legal framework and the administration of justice, as well as economic, social and cultural barriers that affect women differently than men and pose a barrier to reform necessary to reduce the occurrence of GBV…
The current Lebanese Criminal Code is more than 70 years old. Despite the fact that several amendments have been proposed to the Lebanese Parliament, there has not been to date any comprehensive review of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, it has not evolved to meet international human rights law and standards.
The Code not only fails to criminalise all forms of GBV, but it legalises acts of discrimination against women. Although the provision on honour crimes (article 526), which mitigated a man’s sentence for killing or injuring his wife, daughter, or other relative to protect the family “honour”… was repealed, other articles still legitimize and shield the perpetrator of sexual offences from accountability to protect family “honour.” In practice, judges still consider “honour” a factor in mitigating sentences.[21]
[21] 'Gender-based Violence in Lebanon: Inadequate Framework, Ineffective Remedies', International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), 12 July 2019, >
The ICJ also observed that the primary responsibility for initiating investigations and prosecutions lies with the police and the prosecution authorities, who may lack ‘gender-sensitivity when dealing with violence against women’, and does not rest with those subjected to violence, regardless of the level or form of violence.[22] According to DFAT, many police still regard domestic violence as a family matter, with municipal police, in particular, reluctant to investigate.[23]
[22] Ibid.
[23] DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 26 June 2023,
In view of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant could obtain protection from an authority in Lebanon such that there would not be a real risk that she would suffer significant harm.
For the above reasons, I find that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm. I am satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa). I also find that the applicant has no presently existing right, however expressed, to enter and reside in any other country and section 36(3) does not apply.
DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Date(s) of hearing: 19 September 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Ms Katrina Feghali
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.
…