2100627 (Refugee)

[2025] ARTA 1237

2100627 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1237 (4 APRIL 2025)

DECISION AND  

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:  2100627

Tribunal Member:  General Member G Deal

Date:4 April 2025

Place:Melbourne

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 04 April 2025 at 5:07pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – particular social group – abused women – religiously and socially conservative family – coercive control, violence, female circumcision and forced marriage – female genital mutilation – societal harassment and discrimination – mental health – members of family unit husband and Australian-born children – children’s upbringing and education and daughters’ human rights – brief, vague, repetitive and unsubstantiated evidence – applicant’s marriage arranged but not forced – medical reports largely recount applicant’s history as told – no consultation or treatment for circumcision-related issues – practicing but not strict Muslims and likely to return to city, not families’ rural area – oldest child eligible for Australian citizenship – referred for ministerial consideration – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65, 351
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASE
CHB16 v MIBP [2019] FCA 1089

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 18 January 2021 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicants comprise a mother (applicant), her husband and their 4 children (all born in Australia) comprising daughters aged about [Ages] years, respectively, and a son of about [Age] years of age (collectively, the applicants). The applicants claim to be nationals of Lebanon. At hearing the applicant confirmed her husband and children, who did not attend the hearing, would not be making their own claims and would be relying on her claims.

3. The applicant and her husband last arrived in Australia in January 2013 and as noted above, the children were subsequently born in Australia.

4. The applicants applied for the protection visas on 4 April 2016 (PVA) and provided additional documents at the primary stage, including a 31 March 2016 Statutory Declaration by the applicant (2016 Statement) identity documents (including as and when the youngest of the children were subsequently added to the PVA on birth), medical documents dated in 2016, and psychologist’s letter dated 7 March 2016 (2016 Psychologist’s Letter). At hearing the representative confirmed that references to the photos and statement in the PVA were to the 2016 Statement and photos in the identity documents and that there were no other documents.

5. On 18 January 2021 the delegate refused to grant the protection visas. While not making any express findings about whether or not the applicant was subjected to female circumcision as a child, the delegate nonetheless found that as the applicant and her husband opposed female circumcision, her husband was supportive of her, and the country information reported the practice was not prevalent in Lebanon, that there was not a real chance the daughters would be subjected to circumcision, and overall, that there was not a real chance of the applicant or her daughters being subjected to serious harm or significant harm as woman in Lebanon. Overall, the delegate found the applicants did not meet the relevant definition of refugee, did not face a real risk of significant harm, and were not persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations.

6. On 20 January 2021 the applicants lodged an ‘Application for Review’ in respect of the delegate’s decision and provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). At the review stage the applicants also provided a 30 July 2015 letter from the applicant’s General Practitioner (2015 GP Letter), 11 November 2024 letter from a Senior Clinical Psychologist in [Suburb] (2024 Psychologist’s Letter), an undated letter from a claimed Sheik in Lebanon (and English translation), 30 August 2024 Statutory Declaration by the applicant (2024 Statement), and a 31 January 2025 statement by the applicant’s sister, who lives in Australia.

7. 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), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal. In addition, under the Transitional Act, anything validly done in, or in relation to, a proceeding before transition continues to have effect and is taken to have been validly done under the new law for the purposes of the proceeding after transition.

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicants’ representative. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.

9. After the hearing on 11 February 2025, the applicants provided the Tribunal with a copy of the applicant’s Diploma of [Subject 1] (completed in Australia in 2014) (2014 Diploma) and a 6 June 2024 report by the Arab Center Washington DC on violence against women in Lebanon (ACW report)[1].

   [1] Rola El-Husseini Violence against women in Lebanon: The challenge of Legislative Action (6 June 2024) Arab Center Washinton DC <

10. The applicants were represented at both the primary and review stages.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Criteria for protection visa

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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).

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicanst in specifying, any particulars of their claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim.

    Mandatory considerations

17. 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.

    CLAIMS

18. The applicant’s claims can be summarised as follows:

    ·She and her husband are from a large and very religiously conservative or fundamentalist Sunni family in [Village] near the border with Syria in North Lebanon.

    ·Her family are strictly religious, and she and her sisters were raised in an atmosphere of fear, physical mistreatment, and oppression. Her father was violent and controlling, she was not allowed to go to birthday parties as a child, was forcibly circumcised at age 6 (as were all her sisters), was forced to wear hajib from 6, forcibly married to her husband and bullied by her father because she was late to marry, and her sisters were forcibly married between 14 and 17 years of age including one who was raped at 16 and then forcibly married to her rapist which she claims is the law in Lebanon. As a result of her circumcision her menstrual cycle did not commence until 19 years of age, and she suffers sexual issues with her husband, fatty liver, cholesterol, frequent migraines, and mental health issues. 

    ·She fears her daughters might be subject to the same mistreatment as that experienced by her and her sisters, including female circumcision, limits on freedoms and movement, forced marriage at a very young age including to a man as a consequence of rape, forced to wear a headscarf and Muslim dress at a young age, and will not be able to have friends from other religions. They will force her husband to do as they say. If she does not follow her family’s wishes she fears the family will threaten to physically harm her and her family, might put guns to her, might go to the Sharia court to seek legal custody of the daughters to have them circumcised and/or obtain an order to force circumcision on them. She fears the wrath of her parents and other relatives if she does not conform to their strict social and religious practices.

    ·She also fears she and her daughters will suffer harm in Lebanon because Sharia courts have jurisdiction over family matters and favour men including in settling custody and property disputes, women are vulnerable to violence including domestic violence, do not have access to protective court orders, are not permitted to mix with men including in the workplace, or to have boyfriends, or to live in a de facto relationship, have a same sex relationship, to travel alone, live alone, express views on controversial topics, have limited legal rights, cannot confer citizenship on their children, are subject to religious dress codes, suffer societal and official discrimination, sexual and gender based violence, restricted access to education, Lebanese society is becoming increasingly controlling of woman, and woman are marginalised in Lebanon. She fears that as a professional woman she would be restricted in engaging in employment constraining her ability to earn a living and that if she did work, she would be targeted by those opposed to women working in mixed working environments. She claims laws to protect women are discriminatory and inadequate.

    ·She fears her mental health issues will be exacerbated if she returns to Lebanon and her daughters are harmed. She fears she will be viewed by the psychologist in Lebanon and others as having mental health issues, as crazy, that her husband will then marry someone else, they will take away the children, and she might die.

    ·She fears her children might be subject to regressive Islamic teaching at schools in Lebanon if they were to return. She believes Muslim schools in Lebanon have a religiously based curriculum that aims at radicalising the impressionable minds of young children, and she and her husband object to such form of radicalisation. She also fears her children will be forced to abide by strict Islamic practices in Lebanon, such as regularly attending mosque, morning, and afternoon prayers, memorising the Koran and “Sharia”, and being subjected to radicalised Islamic teachings by radical Sheiks and Imams.

    ·Her children were born in Australia, they have been taught to uphold Western values such as wearing Western clothing, which may be objectionable to fundamentalist Muslims, they have lived in Australia all their lives and do not want to live in Lebanon. They have no familiarity with Lebanese culture and way of life in Lebanon including the radicalised teaching and culture, and exposure to this will have lasting detrimental effects on them. They have also only had limited communication with relatives in Lebanon. If she returns, she will have to be a housewife, however now that the children are older, her dream is to study [Subject 2] in Australia, and to work.

    ·They cannot relocate as it would not be “viable” or “safe”, as their relatives would continue to threaten them, their daughters would face gender-based violence throughout the country, and the laws are ineffective to protect them.

    ·She fears harm in Lebanon on account of being a member of a particular social group comprising “abused women”.

    REASONS AND FINDINGS

19. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

20. The applicants have consistently claimed to be citizens of Lebanon, not to be citizens of any other country, and to not have a right to reside elsewhere, and based on this and their documentary evidence, including Lebanese passports, I accept this as plausible. I consider Lebanon the receiving country.  Based on the passports the applicant is in her early [Decade], the husband is in his late [Decade], and the children are the ages already detailed above.

21. The applicants have consistently claimed to be practicing Sunni Muslims but not conservatively religious. While the applicant has complained of being subjected to strictly religious rules growing up including having to wear a hijab from a young age and only being able to mix with Sunnis,  which might plausibly have been the case, and she might have strongly disliked this and felt it was controlling and like a kind of mistreatment, photos of the applicant in her 2015 Lebanese passport and in the PVA (lodged in 2016, after having lived in Australia for some 3 years) show her in what appears to be a hijab despite the religious freedoms in Australia. The 2016 Statement (submitted as part of the PVA) also states the applicant continues to practice her Sunni faith. The 2024 Statement states they have raised the children as Sunni Muslims, that they attend [an Islamic school], but that they do not ascribe to a fundamentalist form of Islam like their families did when they were growing up. When we spoke at hearing about the how the children were and their schooling in Australia the applicant advised it was only the daughters who attended the [school], the son did not, and that this was because he learnt Arabic from his siblings. When we spoke about why she sent them to the Islamic [school], and I noted this was presumably also because they were Sunni Muslims, she reiterated that they sent the daughters to the Islamic [school] mainly to learn Arabic, as she did not want them to study Arabic separately at a language school on the weekends. While this might be a significant reason, as they are also being raised as Sunni Muslims, I consider this is also naturally why they are being educated at an Islamic [school]. In the 2024 Statement the applicant said that when they sent photos of the children to the family in Lebanon, they put them in a headscarf to appease them, but that they objected to this practice. At hearing when asked how they practiced their faith the applicant did not answer the question, instead speaking in generalisations (which the applicant often did at hearing, and I had to remind her to speak specifically about her own situation on a number of  occasions) about how everyone worships their own god. When I noted I was interested in hearing specifically about what she and her family did,  she said they were committed, prayed, fast during Ramadan, and that she taught her children wrong from right. On the evidence, including consistency and supporting documents I accept the applicants are practicing Sunni Muslims who pray, and observe Ramadan but are not strictly religious or fundamentalist, that the applicant and her husband do not force the daughters to wear the hijab at a young age, that the children plausibly wear Western clothing having lived in Australia all their lives, and that while the applicant disliked her religiously conservative upbringing, which she and her husband do not agree with, and she and her husband do not impose the same upbringing on their children, as an adult the applicant now chooses to wear a hijab as a practicing Muslim and it is not forced on her.

22. I accept the applicant and her husband were both born in [Village] in North Lebanon and originate from this area, given the consistency of this claim, that it is reflected in their respective Lebanese passports, and a report by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)[2] which indicates North Lebanon is Sunni dominated. In the PVA it is claimed the husband travelled to Australia for a “holiday” from June until September 2009, and then again from March 2012 until July 2012. This is consistent with Departmental records showing he returned home to Lebanon the second time in mid-June 2012, and I draw no adverse inference from this minor discrepancy in the return date. At hearing the applicant said her husband travelled to Australia on those occasions to visit his sister who is an Australian citizen, but that she did not know him at those times. I asked if she were saying she did not know him in mid-2012 (they married in early July 2012). She did not answer the question instead stating that he travelled to Australia with his brother who married her sister in 2010 ([a] sister now about 34 years of age, who still lives in Lebanon). She said they did not communicate with him at that time, she did not speak with him, and only got to know him in 2011. I noted that she did therefore know him in 2012 when he travelled to Australia the second time (I note this was not uncommon of the applicant’s evidence at hearing, which was sometimes difficult to pin down, appeared to change, or seemed unreliable) and she said she knew him but claimed they were not in a relationship. I find it difficult to believe they were not courting as the PVA states they married early July 2012 weeks after his return to Lebanon after his second trip to Australia. The applicant and her husband have consistently claimed to have married in Lebanon in July 2012 and then travelled to Australia together in January 2013 on student visas which is confirmed by Departmental records. Birth certificates, Lebanese passports and 2016 medical records evidence the applicant subsequently gave birth to each of the children in Australia in [Years], respectively, and that the applicant and her husband are the parents of the children. In the 2024 Statement and at hearing the applicant confirmed the children attended schooling in Australia, that they were relying on her claims and not making claims of their own, that they would not be attending the hearing as they were in school, and her husband was taking care of them on that day.

    [2] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419

1. The applicant has consistently claimed her parents, sisters (ranging in ages from about 13 to 34) and brother (about 23) are in Lebanon and live in [Village]. At hearing I asked her in detail about her sisters their marriages and their children and her spontaneous oral evidence at hearing was that her sisters in Lebanon had children, totalling an odd 8 girls, and 8 boys ranging in ages between about 6 and 14 years of age. At the review stage in the 2024 Statement the applicant also advised for the first time, that one of her sisters, “[Ms A]” (about 28 years of age), was in Australia, an Australian citizen, and permanently domiciled in Australia. At hearing she said [Ms A] first travelled to Australian in about April 2020 (when about 23) on a spousal visa as she had married an Australian citizen and she had had [children] aged, [Ages], respectively. The applicant has consistently claimed she completed primary and secondary schooling in 2011 (in [Village]), an English language course in 2012 (her PVA says this was in Tripoli, Lebanon, and at hearing she said she lived in a village near Tripoli during this year because of its distance from [Village]), an English language certificate in 2013 (in Australia) and a Diploma of [Subject 1] in 2014 in Australia. At hearing I noted that her PVA said she completed some of her Australian studies, while her 2016 Statement indicated she had withdrawn from them. While the applicant indicated she had completed the English studies and said she had otherwise not completed her Australian studies. At hearing I noted I had concerns about their delay in lodging the PVA (April 2016) and that on the evidence it was not clear what occurred between 2013 and 2016 and so asked her for academic transcripts or other material in relation to her Australian studies which her representative said they would provide. After the hearing they only provided the 2014 Diploma which shows she completed her Diploma in [Subject 1] in 2014. At hearing in response to a series of more probing questions the applicant said she stopped attending her studies in about July 2014 when her daughter was about [Age] months old. I noted at hearing that her PVA said she had never worked. She said she worked as [an occupation 1] for less than a year when she first arrived in Australia but had not worked since. She said she was a housewife which is plausible given she has 4 young children who are all close in age. She then briefly added she also did not work because she was feeling mentally well.  

2. The applicants have consistently claimed the husband’s father is deceased and his mother, 2 sisters and one brother live in [Village], Lebanon, and that [a] sister (now about [age] years of age) lives in Australia, is an Australian citizen, and married with her own children. The applicant confirmed this was correct at hearing, and when I asked her in detail about their marriages and children she said that between them his siblings in Lebanon had about 5 sons and 4 daughters, ranging in ages from 8 to 26 years of age. She also said his sister travelled to Australia in about 2005 (when about 18) because she married an Australian citizen. In the 2024 Statement and at hearing the applicant confirmed her husband’s father passed away some 35 years ago in 1989. In the PVA the husband claimed that in Lebanon he completed high school in 2007, a Certificate of English in 2008 (at hearing the applicant said this was the same school she attended, he did not pass, and that he lived with his sister closer to the school for that year, not in [Village]) worked as a [Occupation 1] between 2008 and 2013 (at hearing the applicant said this was in a village outside [Village]) and has worked in Australia in [Occupation 2] for 2 companies since last arriving in January 2013. The 2016 Psychologist’s Letter also states the husband commenced a Diploma in [Subject 2] but had to withdraw after 1 ½ years for various reasons and was about to commence a Bachelor of [Subject 2] at that time, although on the evidence it does not appear he has completed any of his Australia studies.

3. On the evidence, including the consistency, detail, supporting documents, country information and plausible spontaneous details provided at hearing I accept the applicants’ background claims in relation to faith, origin, family composition and location, and their migration, education, and work histories. 

4. The applicant claims to suffer from mental health issues.

5. At the review stage the applicants provided the 2015 GP Letter stating that the applicant had been feeling “unwell, sadness, tearful, no family support” and had a [baby] and that she had started on Zoloft (which appears to be the brand name for a drug called Sertraline[3]). It appears that they were subsequently referred to a psychologist in 2016 as in the 2016 Statement provided at the primary stage, the applicant said she received counselling and referred to the 2016 Psychologist’s Letter in support of this. The 2016 Psychologist’s Letter is a brief 1 ¼ page letter from an Australian psychologist addressed to the Department. It states the family were referred for assessment and that they are applying for permanent residency. It then states the husband had to withdraw from his studies in Australia because of “the outbreak [of] war in and around Lebanon” and “family difficulties”, that the applicant underwent female circumcision as a child, has vivid memories and dreams of this, and “some symptoms of Posttraumatic stress disorder”, that this has caused “much distress” and has a negative impact on their relationship, and that they are stressed because of the pressure from their families and the consequences for their (then only) daughter if they return to Lebanon because they are being pressured to circumcise her. It states this distress caused the applicant to withdraw from her studies twice around the birth of her (first) daughter. It also states the husband’s mother had recently visited them in Australia and left early as they refused to have their daughter circumcised, and that their families were withdrawing their support from the young family, they were afraid of returning as their daughter may be forced to be circumcised, and that the removal of this distress and anxiety would assist the applicant in completing her studies. It states that their return would have grievous consequences for the daughter, and that the applicants are now disconnected from their family and would be isolated, while in contrast, in Australia they are making new friends and enjoying and appreciating their freedom, including freedom of choice.

   [3] An antidepressant is now one of Australia’s most commonly prescribed drugs- but why? (1 December 2020) News GP

6. At the review stage the applicants also provided the brief 1-page 2024 Psychologist’s Letter. In it the writer states the applicant was referred to him for assessment and treatment of her anxiety and depression in the context of her application for a “special protection visa”. It refers to the applicant being assessed on 30 August 2024 although does not go on to detail the results. Like the 2016 Psychologist’s Letter the 2024 Psychologist’s Letter largely recounts a narrative of events seemingly as told by the applicant, including that she was circumcised at age 6 by a woman “not a trained medical professional” with her parents’ consent, that this was “common practice in her country of origin as it is a religious requirement for women”, “there are limits to their freedom”,  “girls are often married off at a young age”, and that she feared her daughters would be subjected to the same “barbaric medical procedures, limits to their freedoms, exposure to regressive Islamic teaching at schools, and might be married .. off at an early age if they were to return to Lebanon”. It states that the applicant had “reported living in constant dread and fearing for the safety and welfare of her three daughters…”. It also states the applicant reported loss of interest in pleasurable activities, social withdrawal, sleep disturbance, pervasively low mood, feelings of helplessness, hopelessness at the future, and guilt about not being able to protect her children from a potentially abusive situation. It also notes the applicant reported that she had had a 10-year history of depression and anxiety, which symptoms developed after the birth of her first daughter, which she claimed triggered the memories of her childhood circumcision, and that her symptoms had progressively worsened over the last 4 years (ie since around 2000). In concluding the writer states that in the context of the applicant’s reported childhood history that her concerns about returning to Lebanon “seem valid”.

7. The 2015 GP Letter noted above also stated the applicant has been prescribed “Sertraline”. When I noted at hearing that this letter and the 2016 Psychologist Letter were now dated, and queried whether she was still on medication she produced her prescription medication (Sertraline) and a copy of the box was taken. Consistent with the applicant’s claims Sertraline appears to be a common anti-depressant also prescribed for anxiety and other mental health issues[4]. At hearing the applicant said she sometimes took this medication, and did not take it all the time, and did not take it on the day of the hearing.

   [4] An antidepressant is now one of Australia’s most commonly prescribed drugs- but why? (1 December 2020) news GPhttps://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/an-antidepressant-is-now-one-of-australia-s-most-c.

8. At the review stage in the 2024 Statement the applicant also briefly claimed that for the past 8 years she had been receiving ongoing psychological treatment to help her cope with her anxiety and depression.

9. The 2016 and 2024 Psychologists’ letters appear to largely recount a narrative of events as told by the applicant and possibly her husband to the psychologists at those times, although neither psychologist claims to have had firsthand experience of any of these events, or expertise in the conditions in Lebanon, and I place only limited weight on the letters in this regard. The 2016 Psychologist’s Letter also relevantly briefly states that during the “first interview” (it does not state how many times they met and this is the only letter from this particular psychologist submitted to date) the applicant and her husband were given a “short questionnaire about Stress, Anxiety and Depression” and that they both had “high levels” of “Anxiety, Depression and Stress” but that the “most prominent factor during their completion of this questionnaire was the caring attitude between them”. As noted in the delegate’s decision, at the PVI the applicant said she only visited that psychologist once because her daughter was unwell, and she did not believe the psychologist would help her. The 2024 Psychologist’s Letter does not indicate she attended any other sessions or regular ongoing sessions. As I noted at hearing the evidence does not indicate she has been undertaking ongoing regular counselling as claimed at the review stage. I asked if she had anything to evidence that she did. The applicant only referred to these letters again and vaguely claimed she had gone to the psychologist many times. When I asked what year, she vaguely said on and off, then 3 to 4 times, and that she went and then sometimes skipped the session, it was not continuous, she did not find it improved things at all, she took the medication, and then started to speak about wanting to raise her children the way she wanted. I reiterated that it did not appear she was seeing a psychologist on a regular ongoing basis, and she said she went, then felt better on the medication, then went off the medication, and saw the psychologist, and it depended on whether she was mentally tired or not.

10. Overall, on the evidence including the professional opinions in the 2016 and 2024 Psychologist Letters, and 2015 GP Letter, I accept the applicant has been prescribed Sertraline since around 2015 after feeling “unwell, sadness, tearful, no family support” with a 12-month-old baby at that time (2015 GP Letter) which she still sometimes takes, that she and the husband saw the first psychologist once in 2016, was assessed as suffering symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress, and some symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the applicant was later referred to a second psychologist in or around 2024 who she may have seen once or twice, takes her medication at times, and continues to suffer symptoms of anxiety and depression and some symptoms of PTSD. However as noted above I do not accept the evidence shows she regularly attends counselling as claimed and note that the evidence indicates she does not find counselling helpful and appears to manage her mental health with Sertraline. At commencement  of the hearing I asked the applicant whether she felt well enough to proceed with the hearing. She said she was in good health and yes, she was well enough to proceed with the hearing. When I reminded her of her earlier evidence in relation to her mental health, she said she did have a lot of anxiety but that she was strong because she had come to speak about her matter. As noted above she said she had not taken her medication on the day of the hearing. At hearing the applicant appeared to understand my questions, provided meaningful responses to those questions, otherwise provided meaningful oral evidence at hearing, and I do not consider her evidence at hearing was materially affected by her mental health issues.

11. The applicant claims she was forcibly married to her husband by her family, her family practice forcible marriage of young girls, and her sisters were all forcibly married as minors.

12. At the review stage in the 2016 Statement the applicant said her father was determined to marry her and her sisters. The 2016 Psychologist Letter states the applicant and her husband were introduced by their families and then married in Lebanon in 2012, which is consistent with the PVA. As was noted in the delegate’s decision at the PVI the applicant appeared to claim their marriage was arranged by the families, she agreed to the arrangement at the family’s suggestion, and that her husband was very supportive of her. In the 2024 Statement the applicant claimed her husband was her second cousin and I am willing to accept this as it is consistent with the explanation at hearing which seemed to be that her father and her husband’s father were cousins. In the 2024 Statement she also briefly claimed she and her sisters had to be ready to be married from the age of 9, at the onset of menstruation, and stated her sisters were all married between the ages of 14 and 17. At the review stage in the 2024 Statement she also briefly claimed that one of her sisters “[Ms B]” was taken at gunpoint at 16 (meaning it occurred in around 2017), raped and subsequently a valid marriage was declared, and that rape and forced marriage was common practice in their Sunni Muslim culture. She briefly repeated these claims at hearing stating that all her sisters married between 14 and 17 years of age, that one sister was kidnapped at gun point while on the road and that they forced her to marry them and that that happened in their village.

13. While in the 2024 Statement the applicant claims she was married at [Age 1] years of age, which she said was considered advanced, I note this evidence is unreliable as based on the dates she has provided for her birth (Lebanese passport) and their marriage [in] July 2012 (Applicant Husband’s PVA form) she was married at [Age 2] years of age. While this difference in age is not great, it is significant in the context of her claims she was to be married at a very young age as is custom in her village. Moreover, at hearing I asked the applicant in some detail about her sisters, whether they were married, had children, and their children’s ages and genders. Her evidence does not indicate they were all were married as minors as claimed. For example, based on the dates provided most appeared to have had their children in their 20s, and 2 of her sisters (about 21 years of age and 16 years of age), are still living with her parents in [Village], single, and the youngest is still in high school. I do not accept her sisters were all forcibly married between 14 and 17 years as claimed.

14. As detailed above, the evidence is that the applicant and her husband married in an arranged marriage in 2012, when the applicant was [Age] years of age, and her husband was about [Age] years of age. In the 2024 Statement she claims that in contrast to her sisters she was married late because of her late menarche which she says was due to the damaging effects of the female circumcision, although as noted below, when issues were raised in relation to this claim she later acknowledged the late onset might have been due to stress and that she still experienced amenorrhea at times when stressed, and I find her explanation for her late marriage unpersuasive, particularly in the context of my concerns with her evidence noted above regarding her sisters and her age at marriage. As noted above after marrying in July 2012, in January 2013 the applicant and her husband then travelled to Australia together to study, have been married for some 13 years, and have 4 children. As noted above, in the 2016 Psychologist’s Letter the psychologist also said that when she met them and spoke with them the applicant and her husband appeared to have a caring attitude toward one another which I accept given this is based on the psychologist’s professional opinion and firsthand observations.

15. At hearing I asked the applicant if she thought it was possible her recall of religious laws in Lebanon was not entirely accurate or reliable as she had not been there for some time because it appeared her claims were not always supported by the country information. I acknowledged underage marriage was possible (under Sunni Islamic personal status laws[5]  it is possible from the age of 9 if a girl has reached puberty, as the applicant has claimed, with Judge authorisation and the consent of the girls’ male guardian) but noted that the legal age for marriage under Sunni personal status laws in Lebanon[6] was recently raised to18 for boys and girls (it was reportedly previously 17 for girls). The applicant appeared to then claim one of her sisters married earlier than 18, had a child, but did not register the marriage or child until she was 18 to get around this, although I do not accept this brief and belated claim, and particularly given underage marriage is permissible with consent and her claims her father consented to this.    

    [5] Lebanon – overview of Muslim Family Laws and Practices (1 August 2022) musawah < Muslim Personal Status Laws, KAFA <

    [6] Lebanon – overview of Muslim Family Laws and Practices (1 August 2022) musawah < Muslim Personal Status Laws, KAFA <

16. Overall, despite the applicant’s suggestion she was forcibly married, and claims at the review stage her family forcibly married minors including all her sisters (and therefore fears the same fate for her daughters) the evidence indicates the applicant and her husband married as adults (and are of similar age) in an arranged marriage, not forced marriage, which she consented to, the husband is supportive of her and her studies/work as they travelled to Australia together to study, she worked and studied while they were married, and that they appear to be happily married. On the evidence I do not accept the applicant was to be forcibly married as a minor or was forcibly married to the husband or that all her sisters were forcibly married as minors including as a consequence of rape, which claims I consider unreliable exaggerations.

1. The applicant claims she was circumcised as a child in Lebanon.

2. In the 2016 Statement the applicant claimed her father was determined to marry her off, and in order to guard her reputation and as a sign of high moral standing making her more attractive to a potential husband, her parents forcibly circumcised her at age 6. She claimed female circumcision was secretly practiced in their Lebanese Sunni culture and that it was a growing practice with more and more Sunni parents subjecting their daughters to this. At the review stage in the 2024 Statement she claims her family and close relatives had long adhered to this practice, it is considered a purist form of Islam, it is believed that a circumcised Muslim girl brings honour and good repute on the family, and while not mandatory is included in the teachings of “Islamic Sharia” and those who adhere are considered virtuous and praiseworthy Muslims. She claims a Muslim girl who is circumcised is viewed by a potential husband as being a wife of the highest moral order. In the 2016 Statement she claimed her husband did not know about her circumcision (despite their marriage having been arranged by their families and despite both families being conservatively religious) until she told him after they were married. At the review stage in the 2024 Statement the applicant also claimed her husband had revealed to her that his parents also subscribed to the practice and that all his sisters were also “subjected to the same barbaric practice”.

3. I acknowledge that the applicant’s claims she was circumcised when she was 6, which was many years ago, that the passing of time and traumatic nature of events can make them difficult to recall, and that female circumcision may also be difficult to talk about because of its sensitive or personal nature. At hearing I acknowledged that talking about female circumcision might be difficult as it was a private and sensitive matter, but that this was one of the central claims and we would therefore need to talk about it. I noted that this was why the Tribunal had ensured a female member was presiding on her matter and that the interpreter was female. While the applicant has provided a lot of generalised information about female circumcision, in relation to the claims around her female circumcision, as I noted at hearing, the evidence has been vague, brief, repetitive and lacking on the sort of substantiating detail you might reasonably expect from someone who had truly lived this experience. For example, the 2016 Statement she said she had “been traumatized since the age of 6, after being subjected to female circumcision” and in 2016 she suffered mental health issues as a result. The 2016 Psychologist Letter repeated this stating she claimed to have been circumcised at age 6 and added that she still had vivid memories of it and dreamt of the procedure. The 2024 Psychologist Letter also said she was circumcised at the age of 6 and it added that it was performed by an “unknown older women who was not a trained medical professional” and repeated that the applicant suffered mental health issues as a result. The 2024 Statement added that the applicant complained of severe pain and other health complications caused by the circumcision as she was growing up, but her parents would not allow her to seek medical treatment other than alternative Arabic medicine because they feared male doctors examining her. She has also claimed to suffer sexual issues with her husband as a consequence and that her husband was aware of the pain that persists as a result of her circumcision.

4. At hearing when the applicant was given an opportunity to detail her claims regarding female circumcision, she provided the same brief evidence, and often spoke in more length about other people or in generalisations. She said that at 6 years of age she was circumcised and then she began speaking about her daughters. I asked her a number of times if she had anything else to say about why she left, what happened to her, and who did it and so forth, noting I was not interested in other people but interested in hearing more about her own experiences. She briefly said it was done by a lady like a midwife not a doctor or nurse, and only that it was done secretly. She said it was done for extremist Islamic reasons. Her family and everyone she knew went through this process to preserve the honour of the family and keep the girls pure. It had mentally and physically affected her. They would agree to it because they thought it was a good thing and they would suffer in silence. The procedure had affected her very much, and because of the procedure she started menstruating at 19 years of age, which was very late. They did not think she was good for marriage and her father bullied her because of this. When I asked if she had anything else to say she again said the procedure happened at lot but in silence not publicly. She reverted to speaking about her daughters and how she did not want them to go through this. I asked her a few times if she had anything more to say about what happened to her and she claimed the Sheik encouraged the practice because it lessened the passion for sex. She asked me who they were to interfere in a woman’s physical needs and began speaking in generalisations about the mistreatment of women in Lebanon. She repeated that as a result she had a lot of pain from the procedure, that she lived her childhood in the ugliest way, and no one would ask if she were in pain. She repeated that because of the procedure her period was late, and her father would bully her and that she had had had a bad childhood.

5. At hearing I noted the applicant had given birth to 4 children in Australia. I asked if she had had any complications with their births as a result of her female circumcision. She said all were normally delivered. She added that they told her she might have bleeding and need a blood transfusion. I noted that in childbirth this could plausibly be for reasons other than an historical female circumcision, which she acknowledged. She said she did not think they knew she had been circumcised.

6. At hearing I noted that online material[7] I had consulted reported that female circumcision could give rise to very serious complications when woman later gave birth, sometimes even the death of the child. It was for this reason that medical professionals in Australia were reportedly recommended to talk with female patients about whether or not they had had this procedure performed in the past, to record this on the birth notification so that other treating medical professionals were alerted to it, and that sometimes other procedures needed to be performed prior to birth, such as where the circumcision involved “infibulation”, which was where the vaginal canal was narrowed. The applicant briefly said it was internal, that what they had been told was that it was more for sexual passion or to lessen the sexual passion in females, but did not have to do with giving birth, and that maybe she was lucky not to have complications. I do not expect the applicant to have a medical understanding of what happened to her, how her vagina might differ, or what classification of female circumcision (there are about 4 different classifications for the different procedures performed)[8] was performed on her. I noted at hearing the different types[9] vary in severity from medically performed ceremonial nicking under anaesthetic in Malaysia to more severe forms, such as excision of parts of the external genitalia and infibulation like that mainly performed in Africa, and information about what was done would also inform an assessment of her claims. She briefly said they only cut the “tips”, that it did not cause complications for birth, and was just for the sexual passion. I queried how this type of circumcision (which sounded like something that did not involve the narrowing of the vaginal opening which can cause late onset menstruation) would delay the onset of menstruation[10] as she had claimed. The applicant acknowledged it might have been the stress rather than the actual circumcision. She said that even now when under pressure she suffers amenorrhea. She reiterated that it was done for woman to lessen the sexual desire and that for boys it was different. While I acknowledge she claims it occurred when she was 6, done by a woman not medically trained, that it was traumatic and caused mental health issues, and involved the cutting of the “tips”,  despite many opportunities to elaborate, I still consider her evidence about what happened to her to lack the sort of substantiating detail you might reasonably expect from someone who had truly lived this experience, such as her own personal recall or memories of the event, and/or what she had felt at the time of the event. At hearing she also said it had affected things between her and her husband. I noted this could also plausibly be because of reasons other than female circumcision. She asserted the circumcision was the reason and claimed that it had also given her a fatty liver, cholesterol, and frequent migraines, and that she had all these health issues at only [Age] years of age. I raised as an issue that there was no evidence of this (none of her medical records make any mention of female circumcision or these claimed linked health issues). She briefly said she did not mention it to anyone not even her medical treaters. Given the applicant suffered health complications while growing up as a result, that her parents denied her requests for proper medical care in Lebanon, and she claims to continue to suffer from health complications, I am also surprised that in the last 12 or so years since being in Australia she has not told any medical professionals and/or sought treatment, particularly given her level of interaction with medical professionals in Australia in that time in the context of her having given birth to 4 children in Australia.

   [7] Improving the health care of women and girls affected by female genital mutilation/cutting (September 2012) Family Planning Victoria – a service coordination guide <

   [8] Improving the health care of women and girls affected by female genital mutilation/cutting (September 2012) Family Planning Victoria – a service coordination guide < Kyoko Nakamura, Kaori Miyachi, Yukio Miyawaki, Makiki Toda, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, (2023) Springer Nature Link < Type III female circumcision or cutting involving infibulation can lead to menstrual blood being unable to flow out, see Kyoko Nakamura, Kaori Miyachi, Yukio Miyawaki, Makiki Toda, Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, (2023) Springer Nature Link <

7. The applicant claims to come from a strictly conservative Muslim community in [Village]. She claims in her 2016 Statement that female circumcision is “widely” and “secretly” practised in her “Lebanese Sunni Islamic culture”, that it is a  “growing phenomenon”, “more and more Sunni parents” are subjecting their girls to the practice, and [all] of her sisters have been circumcised. In her 2024 Statement she claims it was a “long held customary practice in our family”, her “family and close relatives have long adhered to it”, her husband informed her his sisters had also been circumcised, it is not  mandatory but those who adhere to it are considered virtuous or praiseworthy Muslims and that “it remains a fact that in the northern region of Lebanon there are “many” conservative Sunni Muslim towns and villages where the practice of female circumcision “continues to persist in a clandestine manner” and was an “enduring feature of society”. At hearing I noted that while the country information[11] reported female circumcision was practised in nearby countries like Egypt, which was why it was made illegal there, it consistently reported it was not prevalent, and some indicated not practiced at all, in Lebanon, which is why it seems there were no laws dealing with the issue in Lebanon.

   [11] Improving the health care of women and girls affected by female genital mutilation/cutting (September 2012) Family Planning Victoria – a service coordination guide < UNICEF A statistical snapshot (22 July 2013) < file:///C:/Users/Gadeal/AppData/Local/Temp/1/MicrosoftEdgeDownloads/c2056ebd-9fdc-426c-83ff-71fb782cb9a1/FGMC_Brochure_Lo_res_1613.pdf>; DFAT, 'DFAT Country Report Lebanon', Australian Government, 25 February 2014, CIS27343; DFAT 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419.

8. The applicant noted that the law in Lebanon was separate from religious laws, and that she came from a religiously conservative village where the strict Imams or Sheiks encouraged this procedure (which was reiterated at the end of her hearing by her representative who submitted that religious laws between communities varied greatly). She then referred to a letter she had recently provided to the Tribunal from a Sheik in support of this. Prior to hearing the Tribunal was provided with an undated letter claimed to be from a Sheik (with English translation in 2024). The letter states that it is a sharia legal position concerning the circumcision of women in Islam, produced at the applicant’s request. In it he states that the Prophet established five natural dispositions, (1) circumcision, (2) shaving the public hair (3) trimming the moustache (4) trimming the nails and (5) plucking the armpit hair. It states some sects considered circumcisions a “Sunnah” for men and women in order to reduce the incident of disease in the urinary system, prevent cancer in the penis and vagina, and reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. It states such circumcision had become a tradition for many families in [Village], and specifically notes the surname of the applicants’ large family in [Village] as one of the families who practice it (it appears the applicant and her husband come from a large extended family in [Village] with this surname as both the applicant and her husband’s families she this surname). It states they had made it a tradition and custom, most people followed and practiced it, they did it in a “semi-secret way”, and considered it a good measure to protect woman from illegitimate relationships. This document is merely a handwritten letter on blank paper with no letterhead or other official features and only what appears to be possibly typed text at its base stating the name of the claimed Sheik, two mobile phone numbers, and a signature. I raised these issues at hearing.

9. While the representative said later at hearing that the Sheik’s letter contained a stamp, the only apparent stamp on the original letter is that on the top left corner and that is the stamp of the interpreter who interpreted the document, not the Sheik. In response to my concerns at hearing the applicant asked why a Sheik would lie and said he would not have signed it if it were not true. When I asked the applicant for details about the letter such as who wrote it and how she knew them, her evidence was also vague, for example, she only said “Sheik”. and that he was in the village, everyone knew him, and that I could ask him. In addition to the concerns I had already mentioned, I also then noted it was a statement on the Sheik’s religious legal position on the issue of female and male circumcision but did not state that the applicant and her sisters had had this procedure done or that her daughters would have this procedure done (despite the reference to the family name, which it appears is a very large family in that area) despite her having personally commissioned the document. The applicant said it was not compulsory but that her parents were very committed to Islam. In support of this claim the applicant has also provided a 31 January 2025 statement from [Ms A] (her sister) who travelled to Australia in 2020 and is an Australian citizen (her driver licence was also submitted). It briefly states she is the applicant’s sister, is married to her cousin, has 3 girls, that when she was 6 her family circumcised her and her sisters, she had suffered physically and mentally as a result, was now living in Australia, was afraid to return to Lebanon with her girls, and would never return. I do not consider this an independent source. Overall, and in light of the other concerns I have raised above, I have concerns about the reliability of the supporting documents provided at the review stage and place limited weight on them.

10. As noted in the delegate’s decision, when the applicant was asked at the PVI about her sisters and their respective daughters in Lebanon and whether they had been circumcised, the applicant said she did not know or about her in-laws either, indicating it was because it was a private thing which she did not want to interfere in, although has briefly claimed her husband has since told her his sisters were also circumcised.

11. The applicant claims her parents and her husband’s mother exert a lot of pressure on them to take their children back to Lebanon for the daughters to be circumcised and children raised in a religiously conservative fashion. In the 2016 Statement the applicant claimed that their parents had insisted they return to Lebanon with their daughters to undergo circumcision, “placing enormous pressure upon me and my husband to return”, but that she and her husband strongly object to this practice. At hearing the representative referred to this control by the family as “coercive control”. As was noted in the delegate’s decision at the PVI the applicant said that when her mother-in-law visited them in Australia and exerted pressure on them to circumcise their (then only) daughter, her husband opposed this and told his mother that he did not want her circumcised, and her mother-in-law cut her trip short because of the disagreement and returned to Lebanon. It appears the mother-in-law was in Australia for an extended period, being at least a few months, even after cutting the trip short by about 1 month. One of the delegate’s reasons for refusing the visas was that the husband was the male head of the applicants’ household, supportive of the applicant, and opposed female circumcision like the applicant. In contrast, at the review stage in the 2024 Statement the applicant claimed that when the mother-in-law visited in 2015, they made a commitment to the mother-in-law that they would uphold her wishes when they returned to Lebanon, seemingly suggesting they had agreed to circumcise the daughter. At hearing she claimed her husband had told his mother that when they went back to Lebanon, they would do it, which I take to mean, they would circumcise the daughters. I noted that this was at variance with her evidence about her husband including that they both strongly opposed female circumcision (for example in the 2016 Statement the Main Applicant stated “My husband and I strongly object to this practice”). The applicant then asked what if her husband listened to his mother, that there was no guarantee, that his brother would be violent and force him to do as they wished. She then claimed she had heard him talking on the phone to his mother and his mother told him there would be a time when he could control his daughters. She claimed he would become suspicious and ask her if what they were doing was right. She said she did not trust anyone. I reiterated that this was at variance with her evidence to date about her husband and his views and she reiterated that they would force him to change, and that he would be seen as being controlled by his wife. Given the significance of this evidence I am surprised that if this were the case it would not have been mentioned earlier, it is in stark contrast to the applicant’s otherwise consistent evidence about the husband’s views, and overall I consider it a late exaggeration and I do not accept it. At hearing the applicant also spontaneously elaborated on how the family interfered, stating that on her visit the mother-in-law complained about the way the children were dressed, that the girls did not wear hajib, had no faith, were Kaffir, and badly mannered. She said her sister-in-law also interfered, asking about what the husband had bought the applicant and where she and her husband were going seemingly when they went out somewhere together. On the otherwise consistent evidence I consider the husband like the applicant is a moderate Sunni Muslim and agrees with her in terms of raising the children, including in relation to being strongly opposed to female circumcision. I do not accept the varied evidence, seemingly raised in response to the delegate’s decision refusing the visa, that her husband agreed to circumcise the daughters, or claims he might somehow be convinced to do so as persuasive, in light of the earlier clear and consistent evidence about his strong opposition to it.

1. As was noted at hearing with the exception of the mother in law’s visit to Australia in 2015 the evidence in relation to their claims of having been pressured and threatened by family in Lebanon has appeared vague, brief, and repetitive. At hearing I asked if the mother-in-law’s visit was the only time they were pressured or threatened by family. I had to repeat and rephrase this question more than once as the applicant did not answer it instead repeating earlier evidence and talking in generalisations about how the man in Islam obeys his parents, especially the mother. After repeating the question the applicant vaguely claimed her mother-in-law spoke to the husband every single day on the phone and never tired of talking about the same thing on the phone over and over again, but did not otherwise elaborate, despite opportunity. She said it might not happen in Australia but in Lebanon, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law would interfere in everything. On the spontaneous oral evidence which is plausible and more detailed I am willing to accept the mother-in-law and sister-in-law try to interfere in the applicant’s family in relation to how to raise the children, what they are spending their money on, where they go, and unsuccessfully try to exert this pressure on the applicant’s husband which the applicant dislikes and that her family may also plausibly verbally tell her at times what to do in this regard, however on the vague, repetitive and brief evidence I do not accept they have otherwise been pressured, harassed or threatened by family in Lebanon as suggested.

2. As noted above, the applicant and her husband first arrived in Australia in January 2013. The applicant completed her diploma in 2014 (see 2014 Diploma). They had their first daughter in January 2014. At hearing I asked the applicant a series of more probing questions about what happened between 2013 and 2016 noting that it was not clear and that this was relevant to my concerns about the delay in lodging the PVA. She said she stopped going to classes in about July 2014 when her daughter was about 6 months old. When I asked if she formally withdrew from her studies at that time, or if her student visa was cancelled, or she cancelled her student visa, she said she kept deferring her classes and that her student visa was not cancelled. I acknowledge it appears she was able to remain in Australia under the student visa notwithstanding she was not attending her studies from mid-2014. I noted that having a child must have made it difficult to continue with her studies, although she denied this was the reason, vaguely claiming it was because she started to remember the things that happened in Lebanon and was not psychologically well because of this. As I noted at hearing, she did not lodge the PVA until much later in April 2016 which was a long delay. The applicant said her mother-in-law then came to Australia (2015) which caused problems, which made things difficult, her situation worsened, and she did not have time to apply, which she also seemed to suggest at the primary stage when she also said it was due to a lack of money. While I acknowledge her mental health issues and that she had a young child at the time I do not find these explanations persuasive including because she had the support of her husband, they had the resources to apply for the student visas, to travel and study in Australia, and her husband has consistently worked. At hearing her explanation for the delay was that she wanted to study and was planning to resume study which was echoed in her 2024 Statement where she said she was hoping to achieve residence through her study and skills, although I do not find these explanations persuasive as she ceased studies in mid-2014, never resumed, had a child in 2014, fell pregnant with her second child in early 2016, and then had her other children in 2018 and 2019. As was noted at hearing, the long delay in lodging the PVA raises serious concerns for me regarding the veracity of her claims to fear harm in Lebanon and that based on the timing of the application shortly prior to the expiration of her student visa it appears she only applied for the PVA to regularise her migration status in Australia knowing her student visa was shortly coming to an end. The applicant claimed she could have renewed her student visa but at the time she was very emotionally tired and physically could not continue studying like other normal people, although I am also unpersuaded by this as she ceased her studies in mid-2014 and has never resumed them.

3. As noted above I accept the applicant and her husband are second cousins, from religiously conservative Sunni Muslim families in [Village] (from the same large extended family in [Village] with the same surname), which conservative upbringing the applicant strongly disliked and may have felt controlled by or that it was a kind of mistreatment, and that in contrast they are moderate practising Sunni Muslims. I am willing to accept as plausible that they do not therefore force their children to wear hijab or Muslim dress and that having always lived in Australia the children plausibly dress in Western clothing. As noted above I accept they married in an arranged marriage in 2012 with the applicant’s consent, then travelled to Australia together to study and subsequently had 4 children, the husband is supportive of the applicant and that they are both on the same page including in relation to raising the children and in their opposition to female circumcision and conservative Islamic practices. As noted above I am also willing to accept that the applicant’s mother-in-law and sister-in-law try unsuccessfully to exert pressure on the husband in this regard which the applicant dislikes and the applicant’s family might also sometimes verbally tell her how to live and raise her children. However, on the vague, brief, sometimes repetitive, varied and unsupported evidence, the country information noted above, and delay in lodging the PVA, I do not accept the applicant, her sisters or female in-laws were circumcised, that their families exert pressure on them to circumcise their daughters, that they were forcibly married as minors, or brief claims in the 2024 Statement that her father and maternal uncles or male relatives were otherwise physically abusive or violent, which the applicant has not otherwise elaborated on, despite opportunity.

4. At hearing I noted that despite the applicant’s concerns about any control that might be exerted by their families, and in particular the men, her husband was now the male head of her household. In this regard I noted reports[12] stating that under Sunni religious laws in Lebanon (personal status laws which concern things like the marriage and work) at first instance her husband was the male guardian or wali in respect of her and the children (not other male relatives in the family). Consistent with this as was noted in the delegate’s decision, when the applicant was asked at the PVI how, if she were from such as a conservative and fundamentalist family, she was able to study and travel as a woman, the applicant said that that was because she and her husband made the decision to leave Lebanon, and travel to Australia and study, and because her husband supported her there was nothing her family could do.

   [12] Lebanon – overview of Muslim Family Laws and Practices (1 August 2022) musawah < Muslim Personal Status Laws, KAFA <

5. At hearing I noted that the applicant’s concerns revolved around her childhood family and village in Lebanon ([Village]), and it appeared she wanted distance from her childhood family, but that they could return to another area in North Lebanon like in or around Tripoli and stay away from their childhood family. They have lived there in the past, and as I noted at hearing it is a large city which would have more opportunities for work and study and is also in North Lebanon, a Sunni dominated area.[13] She said Lebanon was a small country and that her family might pay someone to find them, then they could exert pressure on them, and that there was no government to protect them. She also briefly told a story about a man unrelated to her that she said she had heard, who killed his wife in another village after believing she had had an affair. As noted above I do not accept they have been pressured or threatened by their families to the extent claimed, that they are being pressured to circumcise the girls, and as noted above her husband is the male head of the family and wali of the household. While the applicant may have heard the story about the honour killing this does not personally concern her, and on the evidence, I do not accept there is a real chance or real risk of their families hiring someone to find them to exert pressure or otherwise harm them as claimed. While the applicant and her husband grew up in [Village] and lived most of their lives there, they also lived for shorter periods near Tripoli when studying English and I consider that if they were to return, they would very likely return to there.

   [13] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419; Tripoli, Lebanon: Jewel of the Eastern Mediterranean (2025) Lebanon.org <

6. I accept the applicant suffers from mental health issues. When I noted at hearing that it sounded like her mental health issues arose after having her first child and that she had only seen a psychologist a few times, the applicant said the treatment in Australia was acceptable, but that in Lebanon if she saw a psychologist they will think she has mental issues, it will be embarrassing, they might take away her children and her husband will be convinced to marry someone else as he will think she is crazy. Although as I noted at hearing, these sound like a list of worst-case scenarios beyond the foreseeable future and was speculative. The applicant said if she saw a psychologist people will think she is crazy, she might die, and they will take away her children. These statements by the applicant were later reiterated by her representative at conclusion of the hearing who also claimed the applicant had expressed concerns about being unable to access appropriate mental healthcare in Lebanon and the implications for her where she does not have access to adequate healthcare. While I did not consider she had raised this, I had considered it, and in response I noted in front of the applicant and her representative that the reports were[14] that mental health treatment and medication was available in Lebanon. The representative then said they did not dispute that treatment was available in Lebanon but that, as the applicant had earlier claimed, she might be prevented and the long-term impacts of this such as being labelled crazy alluding to the applicant’s earlier speculative claims. I note the applicant has accessed mental health care in Australia and there is nothing to indicate her husband has opposed this and as noted above I consider he is supportive of her and the male head of her household. As I noted at hearing on the evidence they appear happily married and there is nothing to indicate a real chance of them separating now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant said she was talking specifically about her village ([Village]), where she said they are extremists and backwards, and the Imams control the village. The applicant has also otherwise claimed in written submissions that she fears her mental health issues will be exacerbated if she returns to Lebanon and I acknowledge a return might plausibly initially cause her (and possibly her husband) increased stress and anxiety as they adjust and make arrangements for the children’s schooling and so on, however this is not persecution or significant harm.[15] I acknowledge DFAT reports mental illness is common in Lebanon and has worsened, that services are scarce, especially outside Beirut, that it is the subject of considerable stigma (especially for those with more noticeable symptoms). However, as noted above, the applicant manages her symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD, on medication available in Lebanon, her condition is not readily apparent, there is no credible evidence either the applicant or her husband regularly attend counselling, and I consider that if they were to return they would very like return to Tripoli, not [Village] where their families and Imams who are the source of their anxiety are located. On the evidence, including the country information, while the applicants may be initially stressed on return, which may exacerbate mental health symptoms, and the applicant may face some delays in seeking treatment or have to travel to seek treatment, and if others were to find out she may be judged or stigmatised by them, I am not satisfied that these circumstances amount to serious harm. For the reasons noted above I am also not satisfied that these circumstances amount to ‘significant harm’ as defined for the purposes of s 36(2A). There is not a real risk the applicants would be arbitrarily deprived of their lives, subject to the death penalty or torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.

   [14] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419; Lebanon National Drug Database 2025) Republic of Lebanon Ministry of Public Health <

   [15] CHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  [2019] FCA 1089; CHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  [2019] HCASL 377.

7. I accept the applicants are moderate practising Sunnis, and that the children have been raised in this way and do not wear hajib or Muslim dress and wear Western clothing. As was noted at hearing the country information[16] indicates there is religious diversity in Lebanon, Lebanon practices the confessional system of government, and that relations between different religious groups in Lebanon are generally peaceful (although I acknowledge a person from a faith might face issues if in an area dominated by another faith). In this regard the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, Lebanon officially recognises 18 religious groups including Sunnis, Sunnis are concentrated in North Lebanon which as noted above is where I consider they would very likely return, Lebanese can legally change their religious affiliation, convert to another faith or even sect, mixed marriages sometimes occur, and Human Rights Groups report the relationship between religious groups in Lebanon are generally peaceful. As was noted at hearing the country information also reports[17] there are no female or male dress codes in Lebanon, no rules requiring the wearing of a hijab (unless entering a mosque, when everyone needs to dress modestly), some people in Lebanon wear Western clothing, there are reportedly no rules requiring Ramadan to be observed, brides and grooms must consent to marriage, and there is nothing to indicate grandparents can obtain legal custody of grandchildren to circumcise them. I note they also do not indicate people are forced to pray or memorise religious texts. While the applicant claimed this was just words and not what was done, as I noted at hearing this is based on objective and more detailed reports and articles on Lebanon. The applicant’s fears revolve around the strictly religious community in [Village] and as noted above I consider that if they were to return, they would very likely return to Tripoli not [Village] (were their religiously conservative family, Imams and Sheiks live). On the evidence while the applicants’ extended family or others such as other conservative Sunnis may not agree with their being moderate practising Sunnis and not adhering to a religiously conservative lifestyle or practices, may judge them for this and the way they live and raise their children, including by allowing the children to wear Western clothing, not a hijab or other Muslim dress, and this may cause the applicant and her husband some anxiety and initially exacerbate mental health symptoms, I am not satisfied that these circumstances amount to serious harm, even when taking into account my findings above in relation to mental health issues. For the reasons noted above I am also not satisfied that these circumstances amount to ‘significant harm’ as defined for the purposes of s 36(2A). There is not a real risk the applicants would be arbitrarily deprived of their lives, the death penalty, or be subjected to torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment for the reasons claimed.

   [16] Lebanon – overview of Muslim Family Laws and Practices (1 August 2022) musawah < Muslim Personal Status Laws, KAFA < Do’s and don’ts in Lebanon (2018) Safi Institute for Arabic Language < DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419; Rola El-Husseini Violence against women in Lebanon: The challenge of Legislative Action (6 June 2024) Arab Center Washinton DC < Lebanon – overview of Muslim Family Laws and Practices (1 August 2022) musawah < Muslim Personal Status Laws, KAFA < Do’s and don’ts in Lebanon (2018) Safi Institute for Arabic Language < DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419.

8. The applicant has made a number of generalised and unsupported brief assertions in relation to her and her daughters, including about not being able to mix with men in workplaces, not being able to have boyfriends or enter de facto or same sex relationships, or travel or live alone, or express views on controversial topics, having “restricted” access to education, and being “marginalised” and that she would be targeted by those opposed to women working in mixed working environments.  At hearing I raised this as an issue and that I also often found these claims speculative. I acknowledged at the hearing that the applicant had described herself as a “professional woman” in her written submissions, but noted this was at odds with her own evidence (she has been a housewife in Australia since 2014). The applicant briefly claimed she did not work/study because she was not feeling safe or well at that time. She said she would like to study and that if she felt safe and was given protection, she would not feel depressed and could study to become [an occupation 3] which would be a dream for her. I noted she could study in Lebanon as she had done in the past, which she acknowledged. I note she did study in Australia for about 1 year, however she has neither studied nor worked since 2014, despite being in Australia for over a decade and I do not accept these belatedly raised brief assertions, particularly as her children as still young.

9. I acknowledge reports[18]  that indicate the intersection of civil rights with religious courts remains a challenge in Lebanon particularly for women and children. The reports note that issues of personal status in Lebanon such as marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance are addressed by religious courts, based on religious laws which are independent of but recognised by the State. It reports religious denominations are empowered to apply their own laws and maintain their own judicial systems in relation to these matters, and that there are 15 separate personal status laws for the country’s various officially recognised religious communities, of which there are 18, including Sunni Islam. I also acknowledge complaints by human rights groups that these religious-based laws are discriminatory towards women and children and favour men. For example, relevantly including in relation to Sunnis, it is reported they do not recognise a woman’s non-economic contributions to marriage, a wife is to obey her husband and the husband can claim obedience from her, the rules can undermine a woman’s economic independence, men are more easily able to divorce their woman, the mother has more restricted rights of custody, there are severe constraints on woman trying to escape abusive relationships, fathers have priority rights over the guardianship (ie in relation to matters concerning education, upbringing, learning and marriage) of their children, the underage marriage of a girl as young as 9 is permissible subject to certain conditions including the consent of her wali, women may require the consent of their husband to work, inheritance rights are unequal, and a Lebanese woman may not confer her nationality to her foreign husband or her children in certain circumstances. DFAT reports some men sometimes exercise control over female relatives including restricting their activities outside the home. DFAT and the ACW Report also note honour killings or crimes reportedly occur, woman have in the past been killed by partners or family, and marital rape is not criminalised. DFAT also notes the 2022 Global Gender Report indicates a considerable gender pay gap and women’s’ economic participation remains low. The ACW Report talks about a proposed law to address discrimination against woman under Lebanon’s laws in the context of domestic violence and argues that the unequal status of women in Lebanon is linked to the country’s sectarian political system and its socioeconomic crisis. Overall, DFAT assesses Lebanese women face a moderate risk (meaning there is sufficient incidence to suggest a pattern of this behaviour) of official discrimination under the personal status laws. It also assesses that woman face a moderate risk of official discrimination in that inadequate legislation, lack of enforcement, and long-standing traditional values and gender roles continue to restrict their full participation in the workforce and community, particularly for those from rural and socially conservative communities. DFAT also assesses woman face a moderate risk of family and sexual violence, which risk increases for members of vulnerable communities such as those in rural areas, from conservative religious groups, and Syrian refugees.

   [18] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419; Lebanon – overview of Muslim Family Laws and Practices (1 August 2022) musawah < Muslim Personal Status Laws, KAFA < Do’s and don’ts in Lebanon (2018) Safi Institute for Arabic Language < type="1">

10. As was noted at hearing DFAT also reports there are no legal restrictions in Lebanon limiting women’s engagement in income generating activities, the law does not distinguish between men and women in employment and provides for equal pay (although women face considerable societal obstacles to gaining employment), female genital cutting “does not occur in Lebanon”, there are important legal protections against certain domestic violence, rape is a crime punishable with prison, and while sexual harassment is a widespread problem, in 2020 Lebanon passed a landmark law on sexual harassment.

11. Overall, the country information above reports there are no legal restrictions limiting woman’s engagement in income generating activities and equal pay, that there are certain legal protections available to woman in relation to things like sexual harassment and violence such the criminalisation of rape, Lebanon is religiously diverse, people are able to change their faith, and Lebanon practices the confessional system of government. It also reports that woman face a moderate risk (meaning there is sufficient incidence to suggest a pattern of this behaviour) of official discrimination under the religiously based personal status laws, relevantly including Sunni personal status laws, in relation to matters such as marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance, for example, a woman may not be able to confer her nationality on offspring in certain circumstances, or a husband can restrict her activities, and this can create circumstances making it difficult for a woman to leave a domestic violence situation. The country information also notes woman face a moderate risk of official discrimination (because of inadequate legislation, lack of enforcement, and long-standing traditional values and gender roles) restricting their full participation in the workforce and community, particularly if from a rural and socially conservative community.  It also reports woman face a moderate risk of family and sexual violence, which risk increases for members of vulnerable communities such as those in rural areas, from conservatively religious groups, and Syrian refugees. Additionally, while DFAT reports the financial crisis has caused an influx of private school children into public schools, putting extra strain on an already overstretched and underfunded public system, it does not indicate girls are restricted in attending school or that children are radicalised in schools as claimed.

12. As noted above I consider that if the applicants were to return, they would very likely return to Tripoli, a large city, (not [Village] a rural area where their more religiously conservative families, Imams and Sheiks live). As noted above they are a moderate Sunni family. While I acknowledge they disliked their conservative upbringing as I noted at hearing the applicant and her husband are now much older, have their own family, and have been independent of their childhood families for some time (to which the applicant responded in generalisations about the difference between law and religion in Lebanon and said they might be forced to follow customs and rules). As was noted at hearing the applicant and her husband are on the same page in relation to female circumcision, Islamic dress, and raising the children, the applicant’s husband is the male head of their household, and wali, he supports the applicant, has supported her in her studies/work in the past, and there is no credible evidence to indicate there is a real chance or real risk her husband will discontinue supporting her or that they will separate, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. In response the applicant said that she was talking about [Village], where the people were backwards and extremists.  As noted above while I acknowledge the applicant was raised in a religiously conservative family which she found upsetting and felt was abusive, I do not accept she or her sisters were forcibly married or circumcised, or that they were otherwise physically abused by their father or other men in the family, or that her family exert pressure on them to the extent claimed or to circumcise the daughters. Based on the country information noted above, while the applicant and her daughters as Sunni Muslims will be subject to the personal status laws in Lebanon in relation to such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance and custody, on the evidence and in their particular circumstances I am not satisfied they face a real chance or real risk of forced marriage (including as a consequence of rape), circumcision, not being able to attend school or being radicalised in school (which I am also not satisfied the son faces a real chance or real risk of being subjected to either), or of not being able have friends from different faiths. While they will be subject to discriminatory personal status laws and the applicant may, if she ever decides to return to work/study, face some judgement from people if she mixes with men in these settings, may be more poorly paid than men, and may face delays in finding employment, I am not satisfied that these circumstances amount to serious harm, even when taking into account my findings above in relation to their past experiences, moderate Sunni faith and way of living, and mental health issues. For the reasons noted above I am also not satisfied that these circumstances amount to ‘significant harm’ as defined for the purposes of s 36(2A). There is not a real risk the applicants would be arbitrarily deprived of their lives, the death penalty, or be subjected to torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment for the reasons claimed.

13. I acknowledge the applicant and her husband have young children to care for and may be isolated from their childhood families and without their support if they return. As I noted at hearing the applicant and her husband are relatively young, both completed high school, further studies, they have both worked, particularly the husband who is [Occupations 1 and 2], and there is nothing to indicate they cannot work. I also noted at hearing that they had proven themselves resourceful in the past in traveling, studying, working, and having a family in Australia, despite the language barrier (to which the applicant responded she felt safe in Australia but said there was no respect for woman and children in Lebanon and that the reality was different to what was written in the reports). The applicant has not made the claim in submissions although the 2016 Psychologist’s Letter refers to the applicant telling  the psychologist that the eldest daughter suffered asthma attacks resulting in monthly hospitalisation and that this would place this daughter’s life at risk if they were to return because of the medical issues and financial burden of treatment. I note however, when I raised this as an issue at hearing asking about this daughter’s health the applicant indicated it was no longer much of a concern, her daughter was well, and condition successfully managed on common medication, which appears available in Lebanon.[19] I acknowledge reports by DFAT of the adverse impacts of the economic crisis on the health system and the availability of medication and that this medication may be more expensive in Lebanon. As noted above, the children are all young, have been learning Arabic, the girls attend an Islamic [school], are all practising Sunni Muslims, and as noted above I consider that if they were to return they would very likely return to Tripoli in North Lebanon which is a Sunni dominated area and large city.[20] I acknowledge the children have never lived in Lebanon, may not want to, and that this would be a significant adjustment for the young family who may experience a number of initial integration issues, including having to tend to practical matters like finding accommodation, school, and work, which may be initially stressful, particularly for the applicant given her ongoing mental health issues, and they may also face some pressure or judgement from extended family or conservative Sunnis in the area. Based on their profiles and the evidence while the applicant’s husband may face initial delays in securing employment, as might the wife (as well as lower pay) if she ever works, and they may face initial integration issues, have to navigate tense relations with their families or be ostracised from them, and medication might be expensive, and all of this might be challenging given past experiences in Lebanon and mental health issues, I am not satisfied these circumstances would threaten their capacity to subsist or otherwise amount to serious harm, even when taking into account my findings above in relation to their past experiences, mental health issues, as woman and girls, their moderate faith and way of living and claims around education. For the reasons noted above I am also not satisfied that these circumstances amount to ‘significant harm’ as defined for the purposes of s 36(2A). There is not a real risk the applicants would be arbitrarily deprived of their lives, subject to the death penalty or torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.

    [19] Lebanon National Drug Database (2025) Republic of Lebanon Ministry of Public Health <

    [20] DFAT, 'DFAT Country Information Report: Lebanon', 26 June 2023, 20230626100419; Tripoli, Lebanon: Jewel of the Eastern Mediterranean (2025) Lebanon.org < >

    Overall, I am not satisfied the applicants face a real chance of persecution on account of their past experiences, moderate faith and way of living, mental health issues, integration and financial matters, as women and girls and education issues. I am also not satisfied the applicants face a real risk of significant harm for these reasons.

14. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.

15. At hearing the applicant’s representative stated that in the event the matter was affirmed they would request referral for ministerial intervention. Section 351 of the Act gives the Minister a personal non-compellable discretion to substitute for a decision of the Tribunal another decision that is more favourable to the applicants if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so. On the evidence before me it does appear that this case may have unique or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the ‘Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s 351, s 417 and s 501)’ (Guidelines) warranting referral. In this regard there may be strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would relevantly result in serious, ongoing, and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to an Australian family unit where at least one member of the family is an Australian citizen, namely the eldest daughter. The family have been in Australia for some 12 years. All the children were born in Australia, have always lived in Australia, have never live in Lebanon, have limited connection with Lebanon, and are unfamiliar with the customs and way of life there, and such a change could therefore have lasting ongoing impacts on them. The Tribunal will therefore refer the matter to the Department for their consideration. At hearing the applicants’ representative agreed to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the oldest daughter’s Australian citizenship certificate, although after the hearing advised that while she was entitled to citizenship as she had been born in Australia more than 10 years ago and always lived in Australia, she had not yet taken these steps. It is not clear whether or not she is now an Australian citizen. As a preliminary the Department may wish to make further inquiries with the applicants and their representative in relation to these matters.

    DECISION

16. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants protection visas.

    Date of hearing:       6 February 2025

    Representative:        Mr Sam  Issa (MARN: 9475894)

    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.

    …