2208643 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1841

2208643 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1841 (5 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2208643
Tribunal:General Member J McLeod
Date:5 August 2025

Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa

Statement made on 05 August 2025 at 8:46pm.
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – particular social groups – divorced and abused males – fear of harm from ex-wife’s family – arrived on prospective marriage visa – physical health and surgery, and wife’s miscarriage while applicant visiting family in home country – relationship ceased and threats from ex-wife’s family – family’s or one uncle’s criminal history and political connections – no recent contact with ex-wife or threats from family – no mental health diagnosis or treatment – new Australian citizen partner, children and step-children – religion – minority Alawite Muslim – fear of harm from religious/political parties and militias – returnee from western country and economic conditions – large family, most in employment – country information – recent external and internal security factors – conditions faced by population generally – no evidence that Alawites targeted – compassionate circumstances – partner and children – referred for ministerial consideration – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), (4)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), (2B)(c), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
AWC21 v MHA [2022] FCA 1568
GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2
SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751
WZARI v MIMAC [2013] FCA 788

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

This is a review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant claims to be a national of Lebanon. He first arrived on a prospective marriage visa [in] November 2017, and following the breakdown of this relationship and purported threats of harm from his ex-wife’s family in Lebanon, he applied for this protection visa on 13 September 2019.
The applicant participated in a phone interview with the Departmental delegate on 26 April 2022 and on 8 June 2022 the delegate refused to grant the visa. The delegate had numerous concerns with the applicant’s credibility, and she ultimately did not accept his claims regarding his ex-wife’s family. She found he would not face a real chance of persecution or real risk of significant harm in Lebanon on the basis of these claims, and that he would not otherwise face a real chance or real risk of any other harm that would amount to serious or significant harm for any other reasons.
On 14 June 2022 the applicant applied to the. Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now the Administrative Review Tribunal)[1] to have the decision reviewed. He has been assisted…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2208643 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2208643 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1841
Case: [2025] ARTA 1841
Decision Date: 5 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of 2208643 (Refugee), the applicant, an Alawite Muslim born in Lebanon, sought a protection visa from Australia, claiming fear of harm from his ex-wife’s family due to his divorce, physical health issues, and the family's criminal history and political connections. The case was heard by the Tribunal with the assistance of an interpreter in Arabic (Lebanese) and English. The applicant's claims centered on past abuse from his ex-wife, ongoing threats from her family, and fears of harm due to his religious affiliation and socio-political status in Lebanon.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under Australian law. This required establishing that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return to Lebanon. The court had to assess the credibility and weight of the evidence provided by the applicant concerning the threats from his ex-wife's family, his health issues, and the socio-political context in Lebanon.

The court examined the evidence and found that while the applicant's past experiences were distressing, there was no recent contact with his ex-wife or threats from her family. The applicant had not provided evidence of a mental health diagnosis or treatment, and there was no indication that Alawites were specifically targeted in Lebanon. Additionally, the applicant had established a new life in Australia, with a citizen partner and children. The Tribunal took into account the compassionate circumstances of the family, but ultimately found that the applicant's fear of persecution was not sufficiently substantiated. The decision to affirm the earlier decision under review was made, and the application for a protection visa was dismissed.

The Tribunal's final order affirmed the earlier decision, denying the applicant a protection visa and ordering his removal from Australia. The court considered the applicant's circumstances but concluded that the necessary threshold for a protection visa was not met.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 6 June 2025 he appeared before the Tribunal on to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Lebanese) and English languages.APPLICANT’S BACKGROUND The applicant provided the following information and documentation relevant to his nationality, identity and background to the Department and the Tribunal, and the Tribunal accepts it to be true: He is an Alawite Muslim born in [Year] in Lebanon.[2] Although he was born in Akkar (and this is where his family originates from), he only ever lived in the Jabal Mohsen neighbourhood in Tripoli.[3][2] The applicant has provided identity documents to the Department and Tribunal.[3] While it was initially claimed to the Department that he was a Sunni Muslim and had lived part of his life in Akkar, he clarified in the protection visa interview that: (1) those were errors and he was in fact born (and remains) an Alawite Muslim; and (2) although he was born in Akkar, he never lived there; he lived his whole life in Lebanon in Jabal Mohsen. He has [brothers] and [sisters]: ·One of his brothers and two sisters live in Australia: His brother [Mr A] has lived here since 2010 and his sister [Ms B] has lived here since 1998. They both moved to Australia for their marriages. His half-sister [Ms C] was born here, to a relationship his father had in Australia when he spent time here in the 1970s. ·His brother [Mr D] lives in Jabal Mohsen, about five minutes from the family home. He used to work in [work task 1], then worked in [work task 2] and does [work task 3]. Sometimes his work takes him outside Jabal Mohsen.·His mother and his sister [Ms E] live together in the family home in Jabal Mohsen. ·His sisters [Ms F, Ms G, Ms H and Ms I] also live in Jabal Mohsen. Their husbands work at a [workplace 1] in Jabal Mohsen, at a [company 1] near Beirut, as [an occupation 1]/owner of a [company 2], and as [an occupation 2] with [Employer 1]. ·His sister [Ms J] resides in Akkar and is married to [an occupation 3] in [Employer 2]. He is away for days at a time. Her husband’s cousin also resides there. ·His sister [Ms K] lives in [District]. Her husband works for [Employer 3] [doing work task 4] trucks and travels to Beirut for work each day. ·His sister [Ms L] was living in Jabal Mohsen but moved to [Country 1] with her husband who is [Religion], about five years ago.·He also had another sister, [Ms M], who passed away at age one. He has been married once and is now divorced. He met his ex-wife ‘[Ms N]’ in Jabal Mohsen when she was visiting from Australia, to see her relatives in Tripoli. They fell in love and their families agreed to their engagement, which occurred in January 2017. [Ms N] returned to Sydney while the applicant awaited his Australian visa. He was granted a prospective spouse visa and he joined [Ms N] in Australia in November 2017. They had their Katb Al-Kitab ceremony in December 2017 and their wedding and honeymoon in February 2018. They faced problems in their marriage and were officially divorced in 2020.[4] [4] The applicant has provided documents evidencing his marriage to [Ms N], and their divorce.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In terms of his employment experience, in Lebanon the applicant mostly worked in the [work sector 1], in [workplace 2s] in Jabal Mohsen, but he also worked in a [work task 3] role for a time (in Jabal Mohsen), sold [product] to [workplace 2s] in a side business of his own and did some [work task 5] work. Some of these roles took him outside Jabal Mohsen to other areas of Tripoli. In Australia, he has worked as [an occupation 3] in the [work sector 2], and a [workplace 2] worker, and is now [doing work task 5]. PROTECTION CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE Evidence before the DepartmentProtection visa application (2019) In his application and accompanying written statement, the applicant claimed he had been previously harmed and feared further harm from his ex-wife’s family ([Ms N’s] family). His claims can be summarised as follows: He claimed that for a while following their marriage and honeymoon, he and [Ms N] were very happy together but later, problems started to occur. They fought when [Ms N] returned home and saw him smoking shisha. She screamed at him, kicked him, burnt his hand and foot from the coals and aggressively pushed him outside and slammed the door. She threw the bucket of hot coals at him, causing him to trip down the stairs and land on his back, causing a back injury which caused him pain ever since. They separated following this incident. Their families convinced them to reunite and try to make their relationship work. The applicant still suffered back pain which was helped by physiotherapy. He returned to his [work sector 2] role. He worked hard to support his wife but doing a manual labour job with a back injury was very difficult, and without English skills he also struggled communicating on site. He tried talking to [Ms N] about his back problems and how he feared they would worsen with this work, but she was dismissive, telling him to go to work. He continued to work with his back worsening, and it became difficult to stand and walk. He begged [Ms N] to see he was not normal and there was something badly wrong with his back. When he couldn’t walk anymore, they went to see a doctor together. Scans revealed problems with two discs in his back and the doctor said he should have consulted him from the start. The applicant commenced cortisol injections and was advised to stop physiotherapy, and if there was no improvement in two weeks his only option would be surgery. The injections didn’t work; the applicant’s pain continued. He could barely walk and needed to lie down constantly. [Ms N’s] family would visit and chastise him for not being a man, saying he was lazy and should be working and was just lying about his back to get out of work and doing things, and just relying on his wife. [Ms N] knew his condition prevented him from working but she didn’t care. She and her family just kept criticising him and pressuring him to work. She stopped talking to him and he developed depression and anxiety from the stress and pressure. The applicant’s father was unwell with cancer and had had surgery with a poor prognosis. The applicant returned to Lebanon to see his father in mid-2018. His wife was pregnant at the time, but agreed he should return for a month to visit.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.