2118373 (Refugee)

2118373 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1741 (28 April 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2118373
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Lebanon
MEMBER:Tania Flood
DATE:28 April 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 28 April 2022 at 12:56pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – religion – Muslim apostate – particular social group – Lebanese drug abusers – criminal record – recovering drug addict – father holds prominent Islamic role in local community – disowned by family – threats of harm by family – honour killing – lack of support from community – severe economic, political and social crisis – security forces, healthcare and welfare systems overwhelmed by multiple crises – access to drug addiction treatment – access to effective state protection – prospects of securing employment – impact on mental and physical wellbeing – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 3 December 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] March 2003 holding a [Temporary 1] visa. The applicant was granted a [Permanent 1 visa] on 21 October 2010. The [Permanent 1] visa was cancelled under s501(3A) mandatory cancellation on 12 September 2017 and he became an unlawful non-citizen on 13 September 2017. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the s501 cancellation [in] 2020. The applicant sought judicial review of the AAT decision [in] 2020 which was finalised [in] 2021 with the result Minister Win.
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the Protection visa on 21 September 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm for the reasons claimed if he returns to Lebanon.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on five occasions on 11, 17 and 24 February and 1 and 13 April 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from two witnesses, [Mr A] and [Ms B] during the hearing held on 13 April 2022.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion or alternatively whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Lebanon there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Summary of claims
According to information contained in his application for a Protection visa the applicant is a [age]-year-old, divorced Lebanese male. His parents, [sisters] and [brothers] reside in [Town 1, Governorate 1], Lebanon. He has two Australian citizen daughters aged [ages].
The applicant undertook military service in Lebanon from [2001] to [2002] and thereafter worked in a warehouse in Beirut from January 2002 until March 2003. He last arrived in Australia in 2003 on a [Temporary 1] visa.
In a statutory declaration which is signed and dated 19 September 2021 the applicant states:
He was born a Sunni Muslim but is no longer a practicing member of the faith.
The breakdown of his marriage had a devastating impact on his mental wellbeing. His ex-wife’s extramarital affair led to him developing a drug dependency and engaging in criminal activities.
He comes from a very religious family. His father is an Islamic Sheik and a well-respected member of the community in [Town 1].
He was formally an ardent adherent of Islam and relied on his faith in almost every aspect of his life. However, after discovering his wife’s affair he became disillusioned with his faith. He turned away from his faith as he was disillusioned because his ex-wife who pretended to be a devout Muslim had an affair behind his back.
He now considers those who are religious are insincere people and cause others pain as his ex-wife caused him.
He has informed his parents that he no longer follows Islam citing the reason that religion is nothing but blind faith and deception.
His father, brothers and uncle are very hostile toward him and have threatened to seriously harm him should he return to Lebanon. They regard his former addiction and criminality as having brought shame upon the entire family. They also regard him as an apostate (Murad) which under strict Islamic teaching is punishable by death. The fact that he is regarded as an apostate has brought increased shame upon his family as his father is an Islamic Sheik. He has received numerous threats directly from members of his family as well as other close relatives.
The local Sunni Muslim community in Melbourne have also shunned him and regard him as not only a shame to their community but as someone who has insulted the Islamic faith.
The only way he can appease his family and relatives is to publicly declare his reversion to Islam and continue to overtly display dedication to his faith, including attending the Mosque for daily prayers, not mixing with non-Muslims and desisting from eating certain foods or alcohol which is not considered halal.
He is not prepared to revert to a faith which he no longer has any spiritual connections with. To return to Lebanon would mean that he will either be subjected to serious physical harm or be forced to practice a faith against his will. He wants to continue his life as a non-believer and conduct himself free of any social and religious impositions.
He has a very close relationship with a Christian whom he considers to be like a mother to him. His family object to this friendship and have accused him of being influenced by her to abandon his Islamic faith. He does not wish to cease this relationship as he values her support.
He is unable to seek the protection of the Lebanese authorities as his father has political and religious backing. A crime in Lebanon which is motivated by honour is a powerful legal defence. Furthermore, the Lebanese authorities are usually hesitant to intervene in religious matters and such disputes are left to religious courts.
Relocation to another part of Lebanon would not be a practical and safe option as Lebanon is a relatively small country and his family can easily track him down. Additionally, the Lebanese authority’s reluctance and uncaring attitude toward religiously motivated crimes is prevalent throughout the country.
In support of his claims the applicant produced a letter from the Chief of [a Governorate 1 religious organisation], dated 13 October 2021, which states that [the applicant’s father] is charged with service and Azan (call to prayer) in the old mosque of [Town 1]; is a member of religious authorities and continues his duties until now.
On 4 November 2021 the Department wrote to the applicant via his representative inviting him to comment on information deemed unfavourable to his application. The letter referred to the written claims and verbal evidence he provided to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in his application to review the decision made by a delegate on 22 April 2020 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of his [Permanent 1] visa. The letter outlines the following various claims in relation to his return to Lebanon which were made in written submissions to the AAT and Department:
At paragraph 120 of the statement of reasons it is stated that neither the applicant nor his representative pressed a claim of Australia owing international non-refoulement obligations in respect of the applicant as a consequence of harm he may suffer if forced to return to Lebanon.
At paragraph 121 of the statement of reasons it is stated that in his written representations he did state that he feared harm if returned to Lebanon due to the escalating violence currently being experienced there.
At paragraph 122 of the statement of reasons it is stated that in his request for revocation received on 11 October 2017 the applicant stated: “I believe that I will be in fear for my life if I return to Lebanon”.
At paragraph 123 of the statement of reasons it is stated that in an earlier letter to the Department dated 19 September 2020 the applicant stated “I also have concerns about Lebanon itself. Recently there has been escalating violence between Shi’a and Sunni Islamic groups after the assassination of one of the political leaders. The region that my family is from is at the centre of these disputes and I am concerned about going back to this atmosphere of fear”.
At paragraph 124 of the statement of reasons it is stated that in a personal details form dated 19 September 2020 the applicant stated that “Lebanon is currently seeing an escalation in violence in the region which my family is from. I am concerned for my safety (sic) if I am returned. I don’t know what I would do if I was sent back. Australia has become my life now, I have no other”.
The letter notes that the AAT member also stated the following verbal claims were made by the applicant in the hearing held on 2-03/7/2020:
At paragraph 125 of the statement of reasons it states the applicant made some statements in the course of his oral evidence that reference escalating violence in Lebanon and made particular reference to recent protests in Lebanon.
At paragraph 126 of the statement of reasons it is stated that the applicant gave evidence to the effect that:
(a)The situation back in Lebanon is really, really ugly;
(b)The economy is really destroyed;
(c)Lebanon is on the brink of war;
(d)The situation in Syria has the potential to spread to Lebanon;
(e)It is really scary in Lebanon at present; it is chaos;
(f)It is too dangerous in Lebanon for his children to visit him in Lebanon. There is a lot of risk in Lebanon; they prey on people; there is kidnapping especially of foreigners. He will not be able to protect his daughters.
(g)If he returns to Lebanon he may not be alive.
At paragraph 131 of the statement of reasons it is stated that the applicant was not particular regarding the nature of the harm that he may suffer as a consequence of the increased violence in Lebanon. He has variously stated that he fears for his life; being concerned about going into an atmosphere of fear; being concerned for his safety; and that Lebanon is “scary”. The applicant also referred to a risk of kidnapping but that was put in the context of a fear he has for his daughters rather than himself.
The letter also refers to verbal evidence given in his Protection visa interview on 6 October 2021 which appears inconsistent with other information before the Department dated 1 November 2021. The particulars of this information are:
At interview on 6 October 2021 he was asked if he helped his family in Lebanon by sending home remittances or money from Australia. He responded that he did so only during the period after he was first married and used to work in Australia and in small amounts. This was to help his younger brother in particular who was sick. He stated that more recently he was not able to send money to Lebanon and that even if he tried to his family members in Lebanon would not accept it.
The letter states that other information before the Department shows that:
From 22/5/2020 to 12/3/2021, seven payments were sent by a third-party customer in Australia, to his sister, [Ms C] (DOB: [date]) in Lebanon; and that the receipts for these payments were sent by Western Union to the email address he provided in his Protection visa application of [Email Address 1].
From 24/7/2020 until 24/9/2021, thirteen payments were sent by a third-party customer in Australia to his brother, [Mr D] (DOB: [date]) in Lebanon; and that the receipts for these payments were sent by Western Union to the email address he provided in his Protection visa application of [Email Address 1].
By way of response, on 22 November 2021, it was submitted that the applicant did not press his specific protection visa claims in his application to review the decision made by a delegate on 22/4/2020 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of his [Permanent 1] visa, on the basis of misconceived advice from his former legal representative.
It was submitted that the advice that the applicant received in terms of the review of the decision not to remove the mandatory cancellation decision was that he is limited to submitting generalised claims in relation to the economic and political situation in his home country, which may act as impediments to his removal from Australia and that if he wanted to press specific claims of fear of being subjected to persecution, he may be entitled to do so in separate protection visa application.
It was submitted that in this regard the applicant was entitled to apprehend that the legal advice that he received from his former legal representative in terms of pressing his specific protection visa claims was correct and that the appropriate application for claiming persecution is a separate application for a protection visa.
In relation to the remittances a statement from [Mr E] is attached with a copy of his driver’s licence. [Mr E] states he is a friend of the applicant and over the years he has grown familiar with the [applicant’s] family dilemmas and has always tried to help break the ice and close the gap between them but it was not always easy to keep the bridge of civil communication between both parties from burning. Despite the applicants wish to reconcile they faced some stubborn family members who were blocking all means of connection. However, that did not mean they turned their backs on those in need of help. [Mr E] states that he has been casually sending financial support for [the applicant’s] family sometimes with or without his knowledge. He hoped that by showing support in tough times the family would turn around and find it in their hearts to forgive the applicant. [Mr E] states that he usually sends money to the applicant’s elder sister [Ms C] who is the only one with a soft spot in her heart for the applicant. He states that moving forward the money transactions were mostly to [Ms C] to help with the treatment of their younger disabled brother. He states he sent to money to [Country 1] where she collected it and claimed receipt of it from a local charity agency.
Submissions to the Tribunal
On 8 February 2022 the Tribunal received a statutory declaration made by the applicant. On 10 February 2022 the Tribunal received an amended statutory declaration correcting various typing errors. In the amended statement the applicant outlines the facts as accepted and rejected by the primary decision maker and set out in the primary decision record. He states he finds it difficult to reconcile the finding that his father is a local prominent Muslim elder with the finding that he can return to his home. His father’s position of good standing and his own history of addiction and drug offending are precisely the reasons why his father and the rest of the family members will disassociate from him.
The applicant states that his mere presence in Lebanon would have the effect of compromising his father’s standing as a Sheikh as he represents everything that is against Islamic teaching and community high moral standards expected of an Islamic cleric and his family members. If his family accepts him they will lose even more face in the local community.
The applicant claims the delegates finding that he is not atheist is irrational. He claims that his personal views about his former Islamic religion and why he now holds significant objections to many of its central teachings are subjective and cannot be reasonably tested by the delegate.
The applicant states that drugs and alcohol are unacceptable in Islam. Apart from his objections towards Islam his association with drug use is considered to be an overt denunciation of Islamic teaching. Drug users and alcoholics are regarded as abhorrent to Islam with individuals who partake in such habits considered to be renouncers of the faith.

The applicant claims he no longer considers himself an adherent of Islam. His past experiences have made him doubt his former strong beliefs and he has renounced his faith to his parents.
The applicant claims that the delegate failed to comprehend the obstinate objections that his father and the rest of his family have in relation to his religious views and his relationship with his adopted mother. This relationship fuels the perception that he is an apostate and has turned his back on not only his religion but his family and culture by accepting being adopted by a stranger, who is non-Muslim. His relationship with his adopted mother infuriates his father which gives rise to further shame to him and the rest of the family.
The applicant states that he is still on opioid substitution treatment (OST) and is currently taking methadone. His doctor is transitioning him to buprenorphine. If he is to make a full recovery he will require ongoing drug addiction treatment and without this there is every prospect of reversion to hard drug usage and addiction which will put his life in jeopardy. This situation makes him a particularly vulnerable person. Should he return to Lebanon he will be deprived of treatment and the emotional support he receives from his adopted mother and without these the prospect of revision to drug addiction is highly probable. The fact he would require ongoing drug treatment would expose his father and the family to more community ridicule and humiliation. Apart from the risk of physical harm from his family he may also be ostracised and deprived of funding for such treatment.
The applicant claims that all drug rehabilitation programs in Lebanon are privately run, which means that he would have to privately fund such treatment. Without family support he would not have the means to pay for such vital treatment.
The applicant also claims that discrimination towards current or former drug users is such that he would find it extremely difficult to find any employment in Lebanon. This will hinder his ability to seek drug addition treatment and to subsist.
The applicant claims that in Lebanon there are no laws which provide effective protection from employer discrimination against former or current drug users.
The applicant states that being disowned by his family and being unable to find any meaningful employment will render him destitute and homeless. Given his profile of drug addict he would also be deprived of other community support.
On 9 February 2022 the applicant provided the Tribunal with a statutory declaration made by [Mr A] as resident of New South Wales. In the statement it is claimed that the [Mr A] was born in [Town 2] North Lebanon but is now an Australian citizen. [Mr A] claims that he has known the applicant and his family since early childhood and that his village is a few kilometres from the applicant’s home village of [Town 1].
[Mr A] states that he returned to Lebanon in 2016 and visited the applicant’s family. He states that the applicants father told him he felt betrayed by his son, describing him as a degenerate drug addict and a criminal who has turned his back on his religion. He further stated that his sons conduct has brought enormous shame on himself and the family.
[Mr A] states that the applicant’s father asked him to convey to the applicant that he wants nothing to do with him and if he returns to Lebanon he will personally kill him.
[Mr A] states that despite his persistent efforts to change their attitudes towards the applicant his family are resolute in their resolve to disown him and carry out threats of seriously harming him should he return to Lebanon.
On 10 February 2022 the applicant provided the Tribunal with a statutory declaration made by [Ms B]. [Ms B] states that she loves the applicant like her own son and her children regard him as their brother. She states she fears for his safety in Lebanon because of his apostasy from Islam. She states the applicant disagreed with his father and family when they claimed that she and her family are infidels.
Tribunal hearing
The applicant’s oral testimony and responses to concerns put to him by the Tribunal during the scheduled hearings is summarised as follows:
He was born in [Town 1], Lebanon. He arrived in Australia having already obtained permanent residency on the basis of his marriage. His permanent visa was subsequently cancelled. He is currently single having divorced his wife around 2007 after she entered into a relationship with another man. He has two teenage daughters who live in Australia.
His parents, [sisters] and [brothers] live in close proximity in [Town 1] Lebanon. His parents and his brothers all live in the same building and his married sisters live nearby with their families. One sister remains single and lives at home and helps to look after his disabled brother.
His brothers used to work in construction but as far as he knows only one is still working due to the economic crisis in the country. He believes his oldest brother, [named], who is a [occupation], might be working in [Country 2] and helping the family with financial assistance. He has extended family members living in other parts of Lebanon. He is particularly close to one of his nephews who also happens to have a different mentality to the rest of the family.
His father retired about fifteen years ago and is the Sheikh at the mosque which is located next to their house.
He was educated to the equivalent of Year 12 and afterwards he joined the military. When he left the military he worked for [a company] in Beirut as a warehouseman from 2002 to 2003. While working there he rented a room in Beirut but went home on the weekends. In Australia he has had many different [jobs].
He fears harm in Lebanon from his immediate family and especially his father and his brother [Mr D] who is the second oldest son. His father considers him a disgrace to the family as he has been to jail and had a drug problem and doesn’t share his views on religion. His father also does not approve of his close relationship with a Christian woman in Australia who has treated him like a son. He said he is regarded as an apostate and is no longer regarded as a member of the family. He said that all the family are forced to follow whatever his father dictates and are forbidden from having anything to do with him. He said that he could face death on return to Lebanon.
His father and close family members are very religious. He said that the women in the family are forced to wear headscarfs from an early age and his mother and father have been to Hajj. He said that observing daily prayers is obligatory and he was once severely beaten for lying to his father about attending prayers. When asked to outline how his family are any different to other Muslim families in the area he said they pray and fast and that the girls and boys are unable to dress as they please. He used the example of not being able to wear shorts. He said he had a very strict upbringing. He added that his family are more conservative than other Muslim families and that his father is a role model and therefore his reputation and the reputation of the family is paramount. He said his family’s religious practice might be the same as other Muslim families but the point of difference is his family’s position in the community as a result of his father being a Sheikh.
As the local Sheikh his father is regularly consulted by community members for his opinion about a variety of subjects. He is in charge of the upkeep of the mosque and leads the daily call to prayer. He said he has previously produced a document which supports his father’s role at the mosque. He said he obtained that document through his nephew who had to act secretly to get it. He said his witness would also be able to verify his father’s role in the community.
When asked why he told the delegate he was not so strict in his religious observance in Lebanon he said that while he observed his daily prayers like all others he always felt forced to attend religious courses and Islamic lectures. He said his attendance and observance didn’t come from his heart but he tried to live up to his father’s expectations to make him happy. He said that when he lived in Beirut he didn’t fully observe his religious rites. He said he lived and worked in an area where the majority of people were Christian and he didn’t feel pressured or judged there.
He said that at a certain point he was a proud Sunni Muslim but that for the past ten years he has had a different view based on his personal experiences and the example set by his foster mother. He said he doesn’t belong to any religion and doesn’t consider himself a Muslim anymore.
When the Tribunal put it to him that country information indicates that extremism is not prevalent amongst Sunnis in North Lebanon he replied that some people are open minded but not to the point where you can question the faith or declare that you no longer believe in it.
When asked if he has ever publicly advocated his views about religion in Australia he said that everyone who knows him is aware of his point of view but he doesn’t go around publicly declaring it.
He said that during the period of his divorce he lost faith in everything. He said he attended the Friday prayer a number of times when he was in jail but that was more out of a need for social interaction.
He said that he has told his family about his views and they now consider him a Christian and not a Muslim. He said if he returned to Lebanon and attended prayers just to keep up appearances that would only make his situation worse as he will be regarded as a hypocrite. He said that in any event he doesn’t want to hide his views.
He said that he told his parents that he no longer considers himself a Muslim around 2010 or 2011 when he was first released from jail. He said he was honest about the fact he had been in jail but not about his drug use. He said that his father started criticising and blaming him for his wrongdoing and that lead to a confrontation. He said his father didn’t support him and blamed him and he felt pushed into telling him what he felt inside.
When the Tribunal expressed surprise that he would tell his father he was in jail he said that he already knew about it from his ex-wife’s family with whom the family are in contact. He stated that his ex-wife’s sister lives nearby.
He said that it has been a number of years since he last spoke to his father. He said he has tried to contact him in the past few years but to no avail. He said that some of his friends have also tried to speak to his father on his behalf. He said that since he has been in detention and under threat of deportation he felt he had better try to repair the relationship.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information which indicates there is a significant level of societal support for religious pluralism and tolerance in Lebanon, that the constitution commits the state to respecting all religions and guaranteeing religious freedom and that religious leaders regularly condemn extremism and violence perpetuated in the name of religion. The Tribunal also pointed out that the news reports provided in submissions about honour killings indicate this type of behaviour is less frequently reported in Lebanon than other middle eastern countries and more often than not targets women. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it is difficult to accept in the context of Lebanon that his personal views about Sunni Islam will incite his family to kill him. The applicant responded that in the context of a normal family this assessment would be correct but because he is the son of a Sheikh the situation is very different because his family’s reputation is at stake.
The Tribunal expressed concern that his claims don’t appear to be supported by his evidence to a differently constituted Tribunal in different proceedings. The Tribunal indicated that it is difficult to accept he did not mention his fears of harm from his family previously when discussing with a differently constituted Tribunal Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it has considered the submission he made to the Department in this respect, but nevertheless finds it difficult to accept that even a representative of limited competency would advise him against mentioning his most significant claim in those proceedings. The Tribunal further pointed out that even if he was so advised, it is still difficult to accept that his fear of serious harm from his family didn’t logically come up in the course of a discussion about whether he could safely return to Lebanon. The applicant responded that it isn’t easy to talk about these problems and he wasn’t expecting an unsuccessful outcome to his last review. He said he didn’t feel compelled to talk about it and he wasn’t advised to do so by his legal representative at the time.
The Tribunal also put it to the applicant that his claimed estrangement from his family and fear of harm from them also does not appear to be supported by the evidence, outlined in the delegates decision, which indicates that Western Union remittances were made to his family and receipted to his email address. The applicant responded that a close friend took it upon himself to try to help him fix his relationships with his family by sending money to them in Lebanon. He said his friend sent small amounts to his sister to help look after his disabled brother. He said his friend sent the money out of his own pocket and that he would do the same for him if need be.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that the evidence indicates that 13 payments were also made to his brother [Mr D]. He said that [Mr D] is the second oldest son and has a strong presence in the family and is close to his father. He said that is why his friend sent him money. He stated he wasn’t even aware these payments had been sent as he was in detention and was not checking his emails and didn’t know the receipts were coming to him. He said that when he found out he asked his friend to stop it as it wasn’t helping him.
When the Tribunal expressed surprise that his friend would do this without discussing it with him he said that when he spoke with his friend about the situation with his family he saw how upset he was and that he was scared and panicked about what might happen if he had to return to Lebanon. He said that due to the current circumstances in Lebanon his friend thought that offers of financial assistance might help to smooth out the problems.
The Tribunal also put it to the applicant that it is concerning that he only raised his fear of harm from his family after an unsuccessful Federal Court Appeal decision [in] 2021 whereas he claims to have denounced his faith and told his family about this many years beforehand. The applicant responded that he didn’t know he was eligible to apply for protection. He said he wasn’t advised about this by his representative at the time and he felt confident that he might win the case before the court.
The Tribunal asked the applicant when he last spoke to any of his brothers. He said he has made many attempts to contact them over the years. He thought the last time was around the time of Ramadan in 2020. He said he managed to speak to his brother [Mr D] and he understood from that conversation that his brother was asking him to allow more time for the situation to resolve. He said he thought his brother appeared more lenient and more willing to help him at that time but when he called him again he refused to talk to him. After a break in the proceedings the applicant rescinded this testimony claiming that he was unwell and speaking incoherently. The hearing was adjourned at that time.
When the hearing resumed the Tribunal put it to the applicant that his testimony in respect of his communications with his brother appeared somewhat different to the picture he previously painted. The applicant responded that he didn’t think his testimony was different. He said that at the end of the day the matter rests with what his father will dictate. He said his perception is that his brother [Mr D] wanted to see what their father’s decision will be and whether there was any scope to change it. He maintained that [Mr D] is still very aggressive toward him. He stated that he doesn’t know why his brother [Mr D] accepted the money his friend sent him and reiterated that he was not aware his friend had undertaken to send his family money without his knowledge.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that the statement from his friend states that he sent money to the applicant’s family sometimes with or without his knowledge. He responded that in the beginning he didn’t know his friend had taken that initiative but later he found out and asked him to stop.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what causes him to think that his immediate family members, especially his own father and your brothers, have what it takes kill him. He replied that he doesn’t think his father will personally hill him but he could hire someone else to do it. He said that for that matter any Muslim person who came to know his views on religion could take that stance against him.
The Tribunal put it to the applicant that the letter in respect of his father’s religious role indicates that he is responsible for the call to prayer and is a member of religious authorities. The Tribunal stated that it doesn’t state he is a Sheikh or Cleric and does not cause the Tribunal to conclude he has extremist views about Islam. The applicant responded that a person needn’t be an extremist to implement sharia law. He said that his father would consider himself to be defending his beliefs and his honour.
The Tribunal pointed out that much has been said about the importance of his father upholding his reputation in the community and noted that it seems unlikely his father would publicly discuss his son’s behaviour outside of the family. The applicant responded that many Lebanese people in Australia are aware of his circumstances and words spreads quickly back to Lebanon. He said his ex-wife’s family also talk about badly about him and have conveyed that news to the community in Lebanon.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how his life would be impacted should his family not welcome him back into their home. He replied that his life will be very difficult. He said his mental health would be affected and without family assistance he will have nowhere to live. He said it would be nearly impossible to find any employment and without an income his drug rehabilitation treatment will likely cease. He said that nobody will hire him because of his history and especially if he is still under treatment for his drug addiction.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how potential employers would be aware that he is receiving treatment for drug addiction. He replied that people could tell simply by looking at him. He said that if he misses taking his medication by only half an hour he immediately displays physical symptoms such as sweating, diarrhoea, lethargy. He said he loses the ability to think about anything else and can only think about getting the methadone. The applicant advised that he is also undergoing counselling for PTSD.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the fact that rehabilitation services and opioid substitution treatment is available in Lebanon. The Tribunal indicated that there is no evidence before it to support that he would be denied those services for a refugee reason or because of any intentional act designed to hurt him. The Tribunal indicated that any access problems he might encounter appears more likely to be due to poor resourcing and lack of financing. The applicant agreed stating that the cost of treatment will prevent him accessing treatment.

The applicant stated that he does not believe that the crimes he has committed in Australia will cause him any legal problems on return to Lebanon because he has been punished for those crimes already.

100. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he owns property or retains any savings amassed during the years he has lived in Australia. He said that when he was married he owned a property but he lost everything in the divorce.
101. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it is difficult to accept that in a pluralist society like Lebanon where there are many Christians, merely maintaining a friendship with a Christian woman would be so socially or religiously unacceptable or would mean that he would be seen as an apostate for that reason. He replied that her being a Christian is not such a problem but the fact that he calls her mother upsets his family.
102. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it accepts the security situation in Lebanon can be volatile but noted that generalised insecurity is a risk faced by the entire population and therefore not something which is likely to enliven a finding of serious or significant harm. The applicant agreed the situation affects everyone equally.
103. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that North Lebanon is majority Sunni Muslim and asked why he thinks he might fall victim to sectarian violence in his area. He replied that sectarian violence is widespread all over Lebanon. He said that in the North of Lebanon there are Alawites and they are allies with Shia Muslims. The Tribunal asked how his family are able to live in the area and he cannot. He replied that the situation will affect him if he doesn’t have family support because he will be alone and an easy target especially if it becomes public knowledge that he has been living abroad. However the applicant stated that his main concern is the harm which he fears from his family. That said, he stated that his nephew was shot at while driving in an Alawite area. He said he doesn’t believe his nephew was personally targeted rather everyone in the car was a target because of where they came from.
104. The applicant requested the Tribunal to take evidence from his friend [Mr A]. He said that he and [Mr A] spoke about him visiting his family prior to [Mr A]’s visit to Lebanon. He said he felt hesitant about it but he thought [Mr A] could probably speak with them because the families have known each other since they were young. He said that [Mr A] told him his father said he felt betrayed because he was a drug addict and had turned his back on his religion. He said that [Mr A] told him his father said he would kill him with his own hands if he returns to Lebanon.
105. [Mr A] told the Tribunal that he did not speak to the applicant about his intention to visit his family prior to his travelling to Lebanon. He said the applicant was in jail at the time and they hadn’t had a lot of communication. He said he was shocked when the applicants father said he would kill him. He said the family was aggravated because he was using drugs which is very bad for the family name. He said he is aware the applicant has changed his views about his faith but that topic did not come up in the conversation with his father. He said they only spoke about his drug use and how they can never accept that.
106. When the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that [Mr A] stated he never mentioned to him that he was going to visit his family he said [Mr A] probably meant that they didn’t talk about it immediately before he made the trip to Lebanon. He said he remembers they talked about it before he went to jail and that is probably what he meant.
107. The Tribunal also put it to the applicant that [Mr A] also seemed to be unaware that his denunciation of his religion was also an issue between him and his family. He said he was also surprised because they have talked about it more than once. He said [Mr A] didn’t know how to bring up that subject.
108. The Tribunal also heard evidence from [Ms B] who claims to have known the applicant for over 12 years in Australia and considers herself a mother to him. [Ms B’s] oral evidence was consistent with her written statement of support.
Post-hearing submission
109. In a submission to the Tribunal post-hearing it is claimed:
110. The applicant is claiming serious or significant harm on the basis of harm being perpetrated against him by either members of his immediate family, relatives or other hostile individuals on the basis of his religious views; being in a class of particularly vulnerable persons in need of further drug rehabilitation therapy, which he will be deprived of and being devoid of the basis right to subsist on the basis of belonging to a particular social group – Lebanese drug abusers.
111. The applicant’s drug abuse and criminality has given him a tarnished profile in the [Town 1] and [Governorate 1] region. He has communicated his personal views on the Islamic faith to his father and to the rest of the family including that he no longer considers himself to be an adherent. Given the combination of history of drug abuse, criminality, incarceration and his perceived objectionable views on the Islamic faith, it is inconceivable that his father and the rest of his immediate family or close relatives would simply accept him as the delegate suggests.
112. The difference between the applicant’s case and any other Sunni Lebanese who have a similar history, is his father’s position in the community as an Islamic Sheikh which makes his standing in the community highly sensitive to public censure. The family would be loath to accept him should he return to Lebanon, particularly should the need arise for further drug rehabilitation treatment in the foreseeable future. This fact alone would bring more humiliation upon the family.
113. The family will be compelled to exact revenge upon their son or at the very least disown him. Reference is made to country information referred to in the delegates decision which states that so-called ‘honour killings’ are reported in Lebanon, particularly in rural areas as well are two articles provided in earlier submissions which report unspeakable honour crimes.
114. The applicant will not be able to seek the protection of the Lebanese authorities as his family have political and religious backing and as noted by the delegate there are high levels of fraud and corruption in Lebanon.
115. Even if the applicant were to pretend that he still adheres to his religion and attends the mosque this may not be adequate to appease his father. It’s the combination of drug, criminal history and apostasy that has brought discredit to the father and for which he seeks retribution as the only means of restoring lost honour. The applicant wants to live a lifestyle of his own choosing and to avoid serious harm he would have to apply significant self-imposed restrictions and conform to religious practices. This would cause a significant impost of his personal freedoms and liberties including the right not to practice his former religion. Lebanon is still a predominantly very religious country with the [applicant’s home] being a majority Sunni region.
116. The applicant is a particularly vulnerable person who requires ongoing treatment which is vital for him to have any chance of making a meaningful recovery. Without ongoing drug addiction treatment there is a danger of reversion which may seriously jeopardise his mental and physical health. In Lebanon the applicant will likely be deprived of such treatment due to the fact he has no capacity to finance such treatment. His family support in this regard is vital.
117. The current economic crisis and high unemployment rates in Lebanon is not the root cause of why the applicant will face significant difficulties finding employment in Lebanon. His capacity to find meaningful employment is significantly compounded by the prevailing level of discrimination towards current or former drug users. He cannot rely on the Lebanese authorities to protect him from such workplace discrimination as there are no effective laws which provide protection from workplace discrimination. He will almost certainly face certain destitution and homelessness.
Country Information
Religion
118. According to DFAT[1], Article 9 of the Constitution states that there shall be absolute freedom of conscience and respect for all religions and creeds. With the exception of Beirut, most cities do not contain communities from all major religions. Different religious groups tend to be concentrated in particular areas. Most Sunnis are concentrated in west Beirut, and the governates of North Lebanon and South Lebanon. North Lebanon is majority Sunni with a substantial Christian population in the south an east. There is also a small Shi’a population in the north-east of the governorate, contiguous with the northern part of Beka’a governorate.
[1] DFAT Country Information Report, Lebanon, 19 March 2019
119. A Library of Congress review of apostasy laws notes the Lebanese Penal Code punishes individuals who perform acts that are considered blasphemous to the name of God and imposes penalties against individuals who publicly insult the religious proceedings of any religion.[2]
[2] ‘Laws Criminalising Apostasy in Selected Jurisdictions’, Library of Congress, 10 June 2014
120. A 2020 Humanists International Report noted that religious group identity remains very important on a societal and cultural level.[3] The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported in 2019 that while individuals are able to remove their religion from the civil register, this is considered taboo and an extremely rare occurrence. Registering as an atheist or as ‘no religion’ is not an option.[4]
121. A survey of agnostic and atheists found that they were pressured or likely to self-censor their views, particularly in the workplace, and conform in various ways in public or with family members, to avoid the potential for harm, discrimination including loss of employment, harassment or ostracism.[5]
122. In 2011, DFAT provided information regarding attitudes towards Muslim apostates in Lebanon. The information request advised that Post understands that the attitude towards Muslim apostates in Lebanon may vary depending on the geographical and religious communities in which they live. In larger more religiously diverse cities, it may be easier for apostates to relocate and live without feeling threatened by their change of religion. In small, mostly Muslim villages, there may be more passive community resistance to apostasy, although we have no specific information about the form such resistance may take. We are not aware of differing attitudes to apostasy between Sunni and Shi’ite communities. Anecdotally, we understand religious conversions are sometimes resisted socially in some communities, including the [Governorate 1] region of Lebanon.[6]
123. Honour killings do occur in Lebanon particularly in rural areas. It is difficult to determine how frequently they occur or whether they are more common in any particular community. In 2011 Lebanon’s parliament annulled Article 562 of the criminal code, which allowed for reduced sentences for murder defendants who claimed protection of family honour as a defence.[7] One study in 2017 found that one-quarter of men and one-third of women said they had heard of an honour killing in their community within the last year.[8]
Political and Economic Situation
124. Lebanon was beset with nationwide protests which began in October 2019 calling for an overhaul of Lebanon’s political leaders and political system. The protests were ostensibly sparked by a proposed tax on Whatsapp and other messaging services and came amid a deepening economic crisis. The mass protests followed earlier large-scale protests in 2015 over the government’s inability to provide basic services such as garbage collection. [9] The 2019 protests cut across sectarian lines, and were initially relatively non-violent and upbeat, especially compared to protests taking place around the same time in other Middle East countries (including Egypt, Iraq and Iran).[10] Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his government stepped down over the protests in October 2019. President Michel Aoun named Hassan Diab as Prime Minister in December 2019, with a new cabinet being formed in January 2020. Saad Hariri’s Future Movement Party was not represented in the new cabinet.[11] The multiple crisis which engulfed Lebanon in 2020 largely dissipated the protest movement,[12] although there was significant unrest on the weekend following the Beirut blast. Prime Minister Diab’s government stepped down after this, remaining in caretaker mode until the new Prime Minister-designate (Najib Mikati, after previous appointees Mustapha Adib and Saad Hariri both failed to reach a consensus and withdrew) formed a new government in September 2021.[13] Analysts are pessimistic about the new government’s ability to halt Lebanon’s downward slide.[14] Protests have resumed in 2021 as public anger mounts over the political standoff. Unlike earlier protests, these are driven by anger and desperation and are increasingly violent.[15]
125. Lebanon is now facing one of the most serious financial crises in its history which has crippled the economy. [16] The country’s banking system is paralysed. The local currency has crashed, losing more than 90 percent of its value.[17] Subsidies have been lifted, leading to a severe fuel shortage and ongoing and increasing shortages of medicine and food. Food prices have jumped 557 percent since October 2019.[18] In June 2021 the World Bank stated that Lebanon’s economic crisis was possibly among the three most severe global crises episodes in the last 150 years. The World Bank also stated that this was taking place ‘amidst deliberate inaction’.[19] Around 80 percent of the population now lives in poverty.[20] The Syrian civil war has also had a significant economic and social impact on Lebanon over the past decade[21] and Lebanon’s severe economic, political and social crisis was further compounded by the August 2020 Beirut blast[22].
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Country of reference
126. Departmental records show the applicant previously held an expired Republic of Lebanon passport. This is consistent with the applicant’s narrative in respect of his identity throughout various immigration proceedings. In the absence of any information to the contrary the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is a national of Lebanon.
[3] ‘Freedom of Thought Report 2020 – Lebanon’, Humanists International, 14 October 2020
[4] ‘Lebanon’s atheists rejecting their religion’, BBC News, 24 June 2019
[5] ‘Freedom of Thought Report 2020 – Lebanon’, Humanists International, 14 October 2020
[6] [Source deleted]
[7] ‘Understanding Masculinities: Results from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (Images) – Middle East and North Africa’, UN Women and Promundo-US, 2 May 2017
[8] Ibid.
[9] ‘AP Analysis: Will Beirut’s blast be a catalyst for change?’, Associated Press (AP), 6 August 2020
[10] ‘A new politics is rising in Lebanon, Aljazeera, 15 November 2019
[11] ‘Lebanon’s Annus Horribilis’, Naharnet, 15 October 2020
[12] ‘After Lebanese revolt’s fury, waning protests face long road’, Associated Press, 18 October 2020
[13] ‘Does Lebanon Finally Have a Government That Can Fix the Mess?’, Foreign Policy, 20 September 2021
[14] ibid
[15] ‘A New Season of Unrest in Lebanon’, ACLED, 12 May 2021; ‘Cabinet talks in Lebanon break down, heralding more collapse’, Associated Press, 22 March 2021; ‘We are Hungry’: Lebanese Protest Worsening Economic Crisis’, Naharnet, 17 March 2021
[16] ‘A Year Into Mass Protests, Lebanon’s Leaders Must Finally Take Action Against Corruption’, Transparency International, 26 October 2020
[17] ‘Explainer: How bad is the crisis in Lebanon’, Reuters, 11 September 2021
[18] ibid
[19] ‘Lebanon Sinking into One of the Most Severe Global Crises Episodes, amidst Deliberate Inaction’, World Bank, 1 June 2021
[20] ‘Managing Lebanon’s Compounding Crises’, International Crisis Group, 28 October 2021
[21] ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020 – Lebanon’, United States Department of State, 30 March 2021
[22] ‘Electric Night of Protests in Lebanon After Blast’, Naharnet, 10 August 2020; ‘Lebanon: a country in free-fall’, Economist, 11 August 2020
Fear of harm from family members
127. Throughout the proceedings concerns have arisen as to whether the applicant’s claims to genuinely fear harm in Lebanon for the reasons claimed can be believed. Relevantly, as noted above the applicant failed to state in former proceedings with a differently constituted Tribunal that he feared harm from his family members because he has rejected his Muslim faith and has a history of drug use and criminality. The Tribunal discussed this with the applicant during the hearing and has considered his responses, namely that he was incorrectly advised by his representative at the time and in any event felt confident he would receive a favourable review outcome, thus alleviating the need to discuss such personal and sensitive issues. While the Tribunal was not particularly persuaded by these responses it has decided, based on the bulk of the evidence before it, that his failure to mention these claims previously does not mean that his testimony, which otherwise appears plausible, ought to be rejected.
128. The Tribunal was also concerned, based on the evidence of Western Union transfers made to the applicant’s family in Lebanon and receipted to the applicant’s email address, that his relationship with his family in Lebanon is not as described. On consideration of the available evidence the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has not been truthful about these events. The Tribunal considers it likely that he initiated the money transfers to at least two family members albeit facilitated by his friend while he was in detention. That said the Tribunal accepts as plausible the applicant’s explanation that on realising that he might face imminent deportation from Australia, he felt that a show of financial support for the family during these hard economic times might help him to gain favour with the family and restore his chances of being accepted by them in the event he was forced to return to Lebanon. Despite the sending and receiving of these money transfers to family members the Tribunal remains convinced that the applicant and his family remain on bad terms.
129. The Tribunal is also concerned, and notes for completion, that the testimony of the witness [Mr A], differed in significant ways to the applicant’s claims. That is, the applicant informed the Tribunal that he spoke with [Mr A] about the idea of him visiting his family in Lebanon before he embarked on his travels whereas [Mr A] said he did not tell the applicant beforehand that he was intending to visit his family. Further, the applicant informed the Tribunal that [Mr A] advised him on his return to Australia that his father told him he felt betrayed, that his son is a drug addict and has turned his back on his religion. On the contrary [Mr A] stated that the subject of the applicant’s religion didn’t come up in the conversation with his father and that they only spoke about his drug addiction. The Tribunal considers there is reason to believe that the oral and written statements of [Mr A] were made in a bid to assist his friend and are not based on a true account of what transpired. The Tribunal has given the evidence of [Mr A] no weight in deciding this matter but does not consider the other abovementioned credibility concerns are reason enough to reject outright the claims of the applicant.
130. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal accepts the applicant is from [Town 1] in the predominantly Sunni Muslim [Governorate 1]. The Tribunal accepts his family are observant, conservative Sunni Muslims and that his father is a local prominent elder or Sheikh in [Town 1] with attendant duties in the Sunni mosque in [Town 1]. The Tribunal accepts the father’s religious role distinguishes the family from other Sunni Muslim families in the area.

131. The applicant claims he is no longer a Sunni Muslim. He has consistently claimed that he suffered a major crisis of faith prompted by his ex-wife, whom he considered to be a pious Muslim, and yet deceived him and was unfaithful to him. His claims in this respect are strongly supported by his witness, [Ms B], who claims a close relationship with him for more than twelve years and who gave, in the Tribunal’s opinion, detailed and compelling testimony about the struggles he went through when his marriage broke down. While the Tribunal notes the applicant admitted to attending some Muslim prayer events whilst in prison it accepts he did so for social contact rather than any continuing religious commitment. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant no longer adheres to the Sunni Muslim faith and has ceased any involvement in Muslim religious practices.
132. The applicant claims he personally informed his father of his changed religious views several years ago and the Tribunal accepts this. While the Tribunal had some doubts about the likelihood of him volunteering this information to his father given his religiosity it has considered the claimed circumstances in which this occurred. The applicant explained to the Tribunal with considerable emotion a difficult telephone conversation he had with his father following his first release from prison in around 2010. He said he told his father the truth about his incarceration and that his father immediately started criticising and blaming him for all his wrongdoing which led to a heated confrontation. He said his father didn’t offer him any support or encouragement and he felt pushed into telling him how he truly felt about his religious views. The Tribunal was persuaded by the applicant’s oral evidence and accepts, that while not planned, he did indeed inform his father that he no longer adheres to the Sunni Muslim faith. In any event, the Tribunal considers it possible that news of the applicant’s stance has filtered back to his community in [Town 1] through interpersonal connections.
133. There is no dispute based on the available information that the applicant has a criminal record and a history of incarceration for drug related offences in Australia. The applicant claims, and again the Tribunal accepts, that his family in Lebanon are also aware of these facts. The applicant claimed that at first, he did not confess to his father that he was imprisoned for drug related crime. He claims however that his father soon came to know anyway because his ex-wife’s family live nearby in Lebanon and remain in contact with his family. The applicant described an acrimonious marriage breakdown and a fraught ongoing relationship with this ex-wife over access to his daughter’s and his evidence is supported by [Ms B’s] testimony. The Tribunal accepts his ex-wife might have been motivated to share this information with his family in Lebanon in order to cause him further problems.
134. It is submitted that due to the combination of him denouncing his faith, his drug usage, criminality and history of incarceration the applicant’s father and other family members have threatened to kill and/or seriously harm him if he returns to Lebanon. His representative submits, that at the very least, his family will disown him and deny him any familial support.
135. While country information generally indicates a significant level of societal support for religious pluralism and tolerance in Lebanon it is nevertheless reported that there is a high level of importance attached to religious beliefs in Lebanon. The Tribunal accepts that irreligious persons, declared atheists or persons holding views that religiously conservative types would consider blasphemous would generally be considered socially unacceptable, particularly outside of major centres.
136. The Tribunal has had regard to country information regarding the practice of ‘honour killings’ in Lebanon which indicates the practice is not widely reported and when incidents do occur it is more likely to be women who fall victim to such killings. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal concedes that ‘honour killings’ do reportedly sometimes occur particularly in rural areas in Lebanon.
137. In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant’s father is a local Sheikh or religious elder in the [Town 1] community with a prominent community presence and a pious reputation to uphold. The Tribunal finds it plausible that the applicant’s father and his brothers are extremely angry about his religious stance and his criminal behaviour in Australia. The Tribunal accepts the submissions made in respect of the likely impact of the applicant’s behaviour on his father’s reputation in the community and the importance he would place on restoring that. The applicant has not just smeared the family’s good standing in the community through his involvement with illegal drugs and his history of criminality and incarceration. He has enraged his religiously conservative father by turning his back on his Muslim faith. The Tribunal is prepared to accept, in the context of a religiously conservative family in the North of Lebanon that the combination of these factors could lead his father and other family members under his direction to seek retribution against the applicant including possibly through violent reprisal if he returns to [Town 1].
138. While the Tribunal considers the likelihood of the applicant being killed by his family is remains low in light of the country information referred to above, it is not persuaded in the circumstances that the chances of this occurring are so unlikely as to be remote. While not directly relevant to the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal nevertheless notes DFATs advice, that converts and persons involved in mixed marriages in Lebanon are more likely to suffer harassment as a result of specific localised factors such as a family’s socio-economic standing or level of social/religious conservatism.[23] The Tribunal is of the view that in this case such localised factors, specifically the religious conservatism of his family and his father’s religious standing in [Town 1] exist and are relevant and raise the level of risk of harm to the applicant. For this reason the Tribunal has adopted a cautious approach in deciding this matter.
139. Having carefully considered the available evidence and taking note of the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a chance, which is not remote, that the applicant will suffer serious harm at the hands of his family, including serious physical harm or possibly even death, if he returns to [Town 1] for reason of his religious views and/or his membership of a particular social group – namely recovering drug addicts.
140. The Tribunal notes that a person only has a well-founded fear of persecution if the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country. While the Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant’s family will vigorously resist his presence in [Town 1] and that his return there will likely place him at risk of serious harm it is not persuaded that this situation extends beyond his local area. Much has been said in submissions and in oral evidence about the reasons for his father and brothers’ motivation to seriously harm the applicant if he returns home. That is, the need for the applicant’s father and family members to restore their honour and standing in the local community given their unique circumstances.
141. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant’s father has a reputation as an esteemed religious leader throughout Lebanon and there is no persuasive evidence before the Tribunal to support that the family will seek to locate and seriously physically harm the applicant in other parts of Lebanon to uphold the family’s reputation throughout Lebanon. In the Tribunal’s view their threats have focused on what they will do if the applicant returns to [Town 1]. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s father and family members are likely most concerned about the damage to their reputation in their locality where they are known. The Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant returns to another part of Lebanon where his presence will not smear the good name of his family, he will not face a real chance of serious harm. Further, the applicant does not profess to denouncing Islam publicly and the Tribunal is satisfied he will not do so anywhere in Lebanon. Therefore, the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution according to the requirements at s5J (1)(c) of the Act and does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
[23] DFAT Country Information Report, 19 March 2019

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

143. If the applicant returns to his home in [Town 1] the Tribunal is satisfied, for the reasons outlined above, that there is a real risk he will suffer serious physical harm or even death at the hands of his family who are intent on severely punishing him for his actions. The Tribunal considers he would suffer severe physical pain and suffering and that this would amount to significant harm in the form of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.
144. The Tribunal notes that 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 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 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 the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
145. The harm which the applicant faces at the hands of his family, namely serious physical harm and/or death and familial rejection, is not something which is faced by the population of the country generally.
146. As with all institutions in Lebanon currently, there are issues of resourcing, corruption, sectarianism and clientelism within the internal security forces. Lebanon has local municipal police although the lack of a comprehensive national law organising the municipal police and civil defence sectors sometimes leaves local police units to the discretionary power of the mayor. Municipal police units are reportedly under-resourced, under-trained and under-staffed in a majority of areas, although they are often the first point of call for the public.[24] The financial crisis has also impacted the security sector in Lebanon. The International Crisis Group has warned that the state may soon be unable to pay public service wages, which will further erode the state’s capacity, not least in the security sector.[25] Caretaker Interior Mohammed Fahmi stated in March 2021 that ‘state institutions are drained’ and the security forces are unable to perform 90 percent of their duties.[26] In the circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant could obtain effective state protection against the physical harm he fears from his family.
[24] Are municipalities in Lebanon delivering? Survey results on solid waste management, public safety and citizen outreach at the local level, Democracy Reporting International, June 2019; The Security Sector in Lebanon – Jurisdiction and Organisation, Carnegie Endowment, 21 February 2018
[25] Preventing State Collapse in Lebanon, International Crisis Group, 1 October 2020
[26] Fahmi Sounds Alarm on Crisis: Security Forces Unable to Perform 90% of tasks, Naharnet, 13 March 2021
147. The Tribunal also agrees with the submissions made by the applicant’s representative that at the very least he faces certain ostracism from the family and would therefore have no familial support to meet his basic needs in Lebanon. Lebanon’s welfare system largely consists of informal patronage networks based on its confessional political system leaving a large section of society without any formal state based social protection.[27] The situation has been further entrenched since Lebanon was largely left without a functioning government since the Beirut blast, with political parties (especially Hezbollah) providing supporters with basic necessities such as food, fuel and medicines. [28] Reports indicate that Lebanon’s healthcare system is also overwhelmed by the multiple crises facing the country. In circumstances where Lebanon is now facing one of the most serious financial crises in its history which has crippled the economy the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant could obtain the social protections he would require in Lebanon.
[27] Lebanon: Direct COVID-19 Assistance to Hardest Hit, Human Rights Watch, 8 April 2020; Poverty Targeting is not the solution for much needed social policy, Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies, March 2020
[28] Driven by despair, Lebanese pharmacist looks to life abroad’, Associated Press, 13 May 2021; Managing Lebanon’s compounding crises, International Crisis Group, 28 October 2021
148. In view of the above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a risk that he would suffer significant harm.
149. Lastly, the Tribunal has considered whether the applicant could reasonably relocate to another part of Lebanon to avoid being harmed by his family. If the applicant is required to return to Lebanon the Tribunal is satisfied he will do so without any financial reserves and as a person reliant on an opioid substitution program which he would need to pay for in Lebanon[29]. The applicant is a vulnerable person and the country is in the midst of a severe political and economic crisis. Without familial support in such circumstances, and given his personal attributes, the Tribunal considers he will have little to no prospects of securing employment and will be left to fend with no other means of support. The Tribunal is satisfied that he will be unable to subsist and will be rendered destitute and homeless. The Tribunal also accepts these circumstances will likely mean that his drug treatment program, which is likely to be required for the foreseeable future, will be interrupted or discontinued placing him at risk of reversion and further difficulty. The Tribunal accepts these circumstances will have a seriously detrimental impact on his mental and physical wellbeing.
[29] ‘Inter-Ministerial Substance Use Response: Strategy for Lebanon 2016-2021’, Ministry of Public Health – Lebanon, 2016; ‘Challenges in implementing opioid agonist therapy in Lebanon: a qualitative study from a user’s perspective’, BioMed Central, 2018; ‘National Report on Drug Situation in Lebanon 2017’, Ministry of Public Health, Lebanon, December 2017; ‘Mapping of Services for Substance Abuse Disorders’, Ministry of Public Health – Lebanon, 2017
150. In the circumstances described above the Tribunal does not consider it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another part of Lebanon where there would not be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSION
151. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Lebanon there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
152. The Tribunal notes there may be some potentially relevant public interest questions in regard to this matter, but they are not matters for the Tribunal to decide as they are subject purely to the discretion of the Minister.
DECISION
153. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Tania Flood
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2022] AATA 1741

28 April 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Remedies

Standing

Statutory Construction