2432054 (Refugee)
[2025] ARTA 1076
•7 January 2025
2432054 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1076 (7 JANUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Mr Mohamed Al-Fadhli
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2432054
Tribunal:Deputy President S Roushan
Date:7 January 2025
Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 07 January 2025 at 1:04pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – application made after criminal convictions, imprisonment, resident return visa cancelled and immigration detention – fear of harm from Hezbollah – member of youth organisation and some contact and activities as adult – perceived disloyalty, written offer of reward and extortion attempt during return visit – economic conditions – generalised evidence – hardship to Australian citizen wife and children – no past harm, low profile and no approach to father in home area – reward document inauthentic – country information – membership requirements – targeting of high-profile individuals – economic conditions apply generally – decision under review affirmedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H(1)(a), 5J(1)(a), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
The applicant is [Age] years old. He is a national of Lebanon and a Sunni Muslim. He was born in [Village], North Lebanon, where he also resided until his relocation to Australia in June 2006 following his marriage to [Ms A], an Australian citizen. The applicant and [Ms A] have [children] together.
The applicant was granted a subclass 820 Partner visa (temporary) in February 2008 and a subclass 801 Partner visa (Permanent) in July 2009.
On 5 December 2018, the applicant was granted a subclasses 155 Resident Return visa in connection with his application for Australian citizenship. [In] December 2018, he travelled to Lebanon, returning to Australia [in] January 2019.
[In] November 2021, the applicant was convicted of [Offence] in the District Court of NSW and sentenced to three years imprisonment. His Resident Return visa was subsequently cancelled on character grounds.
Following his release from prison in May 2023, the applicant was placed in Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, where he remains. He applied for a Protection visa on 31 July 2024.
On 2 September 2024, a delegate of the Minister of Home Affairs refused the applicant’s Protection visa application under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
This decision and statement of reasons is a review of the delegate’s decision by the Tribunal.
CLAIMS AND EVIDNECE
Evidence before the Department
Protection visa application
On 25 July 2024, the applicant submitted to the Department an application for a Protection visa application. In response to questions in relation to his reasons for claiming protection in Australia, the applicant stated that ‘a separate detailed statement will be attached shortly’.
On 26 July 2024, the Department wrote to the applicant and asked him to provide a ‘statement of protection claims’ in order for his Protection visa application to be considered and processed as valid.
On 31 July 2024, the applicant submitted a statement outlining his reasons for claiming protection. He made the following claims in that statement.
He became ‘involved’ with Hezbollah ‘through some friends because they offered money and medical cover’. Initially, he didn’t understand ‘the seriousness’ of his involvement, but gradually Hezbollah started asking him to gather information on specific people and eventually to spy on his own family and friends. He realised he was in a dangerous situation and decided to escape. He ‘reached out to friends who had family in Australia’ and ‘managed to get married and leave Lebanon without any issues.’
When he returned to Lebanon in 2018 to visit his seriously ill mother, he was approached by ‘high-ranking Hizballah members’ who wanted to know why he had not ‘stayed in touch’. They demanded ‘a large amount of money to keep quiet about [his] absence’ as they considered him to have ‘used them and then turned [his] back on them’. Fearing for his safety, he left Lebanon ‘in a hurry’ and did not encounter those individuals again.
‘Economic hardship’ also played a significant role in his decision to leave Lebanon, as his family was ‘very poor,’ and there was pressure on him to make money in order to meet the family’s needs, including his mother’s medical expenses.
If he were to return to Lebanon, he would be ‘arrested’, ‘tortured, jailed, and forcibly sent by Hezbollah to South Lebanon to fight against the Israeli army.
The interview
The applicant attended an interview with the Department on 19 August 2024. The interview was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence at the interview is referred to in the Tribunal’s analysis below.
Post interview submissions
On 22 August 2024, the applicant’s representative, Mr Mohamed Al-Fadhli made a submission to the Department in response to the issues raised with the applicant at the interview.
Mr Al-Fadhli stated in his submission that the applicant fears for his life in Lebanon due to ‘his prior involvement with Hizballah and the circumstances of his departure’. He ‘faced serious threats to his safety due to his involuntary involvement with Hizballah’. He was initially ‘recruited under the pretext of financial and medical support’. He was later ‘coerced into gathering information and spying on his own family and friends, actions that exposed him to severe risks’. During his return trip to Lebanon in 2018, he was confronted by ‘high-ranking Hizballah members who threatened him and demanded a large sum of money’, prompting him to ‘flee Lebanon once again’. He was accused of ‘betrayal’ and Hezbollah members believed that he ‘had used them and then turned his back on the organisation’.
Mr Al-Fadhli clarified the applicant’s evidence at the interview that ‘his father knew someone within the Lebanese government’ who could ascertain ‘whether his name appeared on a public wanted list’.
Mr Al-Fadhli submitted that Hezbollah’s ‘capabilities and methods of operation pose significant risks to individuals they perceive as enemies or traitors’. The organisation’s intelligence network is robust, and they have a history of dealing with those they consider disloyal in a ruthless manner. Hezbollah would likely use their network of operatives and sympathisers within the Lebanese government, military, and security forces to track and potentially detain the applicant.
It was submitted that the applicant was involved with the Hezbollah Scouts or Al-Mahdi Scouts. The group is closely linked to the broader Hezbollah movement and ‘in some contexts, participation in the Scouts may be viewed as an indication of alignment with Hizballah’s (sic) ideology and objectives’. It was submitted that the applicant’s involvement with Hezbollah Scouts could ‘potentially link him to the broader activities and objectives of’ Hezbollah.
The delegate’s decision
The delegate accepted the applicant is a Sunni Muslim from North Lebanon and that he fears returning to Lebanon due to the economic situation. However, she did not accept that the applicant was a member of Hezbollah Scouts during his youth or performed any reporting duties for them, or that he was deemed to be a Hezbollah supporter for any reason. She did not accept that the applicant was a person of interest to Hezbollah or the Lebanese authorities for any reason. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Lebanon, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm under s 36(2A) of the Act. The delegate found that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 6 September 2024, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision.
The hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 November 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also took evidence from the applicant’s wife, [Ms A], and his brother, [Mr B]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. Mr Al-Fadhli also attended the hearing. Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing is referred to in the Tribunal’s analysis below.
At the hearing, the applicant submitted to the Tribunal a copy and translation of an undated letter purportedly issued by [name], [Position 1] of the Executive Council of Hezbollah, stating:
The Islamic Resistance offers a reward for information about [the applicant]. We confirm his absolute secrecy. He has connections with groups of Hezbollah agents and his name is mentioned in a list of 6 people wanted by the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon.
Post-hearing submissions
Following the hearing, on 27 November 2024, Mr Al-Fadhli provided a submission to the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s evidence and the concerns with him at the hearing. In support of the submission, Mr Al-Fadhli also provided the Tribunal with a transcript of a podcast dated 15 November 2023 and presented by Matthew Levitt, Former-Wexler Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
In his submission, Mr Al-Fadhli reiterated the essence of the applicant’s claims and referred to his own oral submissions at the hearing, outlining the risks faced by the applicant ‘due to Hezbollah’s internal policies’ and highlighting that ‘Hezbollah maintains strict discipline to ensure loyalty and prevent defection, with severe consequences for individuals attempting to leave the organisation.’
Mr Al-Fadhli submitted that the applicant fears persecution upon return to Lebanon due to his departure from Hezbollah without permission. Referring to the transcript of the podcast, he submitted that Hezbollah operates Unit 121, a covert assassination unit ‘tasked with eliminating internal and external dissenters.’ The Unit operates under the direct orders of the Secretary General and its activities include ‘the targeted killings of critics and former members, demonstrating Hezbollah's ruthless approach to perceived disloyalty’ and that, between 2005 and 2013, ‘Hezbollah systematically eliminated dissenters through car bombings and targeted killings.’
Mr Al-Fadhli also provided explanations for problematic aspects of the applicant’s oral evidence, which were highlighted at the hearing. These explanations have been considered in the Tribunal’s analysis below.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Analysis, reasons and findings
The applicant, in essence, claims to have joined Hezbollah Scouts when he was approximately [age] years old in exchange for pocket money, food and ‘medical over’. He had stayed with Hezbollah Scouts until the age of 18 when he had to undergo his compulsory military service. After completing his military service, he had remained in contact with Hezbollah for a few years[1] and had some involvement with the group, including attending meetings or sermons in Beirut before ceasing all contact and activities. He claims that he would be harmed by Hezbollah if he were to return to Lebanon for having left the organisation. He would also be forcefully recruited as a combatant by Hezbollah.
[1] According to his evidence at the hearing until 2001 and based on his oral evidence to the delegate until 2004.
For the following reasons, I found the applicant’s claims regarding his past association with Hezbollah highly unpersuasive and lacking in credibility.
I accept that an extended period has passed since the time the applicant claims he joined Hezbollah Scouts. Nevertheless, I consider it reasonable to expect the applicant to be able to provide a relatively coherent account of how he had joined Hezbollah (or its Scouts), the type of education and training he had received during the three or four years he claims to have remained actively involved with the organisation and, at least, a basic understanding of Hezbollah as a religious and political organisation. At the hearing, I found his responses to my questions regarding his involvement with Hezbollah to be frequently confined to banal generalities and he required prompting to focus his answers on his own personal experiences. In light of his evidence regarding the period and the nature of his involvement with the group, he also displayed manifestly insufficient understanding of Hezbollah’s fundamental beliefs, basic institutional doctrine, and operational framework.
In his oral evidence to the delegate, the applicant had stated that he started going to excursions with the Scouts after joining them at the age of [age]. When asked how he had joined, he said they took down his name and his mother’s name, and they registered him. He stated that he did not have a role in the organisation, but he was asked to gather information about the Syrians living in his area and what was happening in the area. In his Protection visa application, the applicant had also claimed that he was asked by Hezbollah to gather information on specific people and eventually to spy on his own family and friends
At the hearing, in response to questions regarding how he had joined Hezbollah, the applicant stated that he got to know members of the party in Tripoli. They told him about the party and gradually his ‘brain was washed’. In his area of [Town], everyone belongs to a group or a party, but the most prominent group was Hezbollah because they always offered financial assistance. I asked the applicant how he had joined Hezbollah. He said ‘they’ make you feel they have power and that they are ‘everything’, but years later one discovers who they really are. When I repeated the question and asked him to speak of his personal experiences, he replied he knew young men older than him in his area and they had cars and motorbikes. He got ‘excited’ and he joined. He added that anyone who wanted to join or volunteer, they allowed it. When asked what education or training he had received, he said he did not receive ‘anything other than failure and mental suffering’. When I again asked him if he received any training, he said he received training in the form of ‘push ups, running and carrying rocks’. Asked if he had received any education about Hezbollah and its objectives, he said their goal is ‘they are the primary resistance’ and ‘liberation for Lebanon’. When later in the course of the hearing I again asked him if he had received any religious education by Hezbollah, he said one cannot learn religion from them. With regard to Hezbollah’s religious ideology and beliefs, while he stated that Hezbollah is an Iranian Shi’a group that believes in wilayat al-faqih, he did not know what wilayat al-faqih is. He also stated that Hezbollah is shared between all sects in Lebanon. When I asked him to elaborate on his response, he said Sunnis, Christians, Shi’as, and Druze can all be a part of Hezbollah. I also asked the applicant if he could tell me anything about Hezbollah’s structure and organisational framework. He responded that regardless of one’s level of involvement, one cannot learn anything from Hezbollah. They all ‘look similar’, and they gave aliases to people.
It’s a notorious fact that Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shi’a political party and militant group.[2] It is not an organisation that is shared between all religious sects in Lebanon as claimed by the applicant. According to the sources consulted, to join Hezbollah, one must at least be a Muslim.[3] With regard to Hezbollah Scouts, the organisation is part of Hezbollah’s Educational Unit and encourages the youth to support Hezbollah’s cause and participate in its resistance through knowledge and education.[4] Importantly, Shi‘a Islam plays an important role in the group’s identity, as stated in their scout promise and law. As noted by Tagliabue, ‘religious symbols pervade the entire nature and life of the organization, starting from the name of the group — al-Mahdi — and from some of the names of the brigades.’[5] Members of Al Mahdi Scouts are deeply steeped in learning about Shi’a religious and political figures, and the group’s religious identity is also reflected in their participation in Shi’a religious activities. The Al Mahdi Scouts’ identity is shaped by the values of Scouting, Islam, and Shiism and Hezbollah ideology.[6]
[2] Katherine Trauger, Examining Extremism: Hezbollah, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, 26 March 2024, What Is Hezbollah?, Council on Foreign Relations,29 October 2024, Sofia Maria Tagliabue, Inside Hezbollah: The al-Mahdi Scouts, Education, and Resistance, Digest of Middle East Studies Vol 24(1), 2015.
[3] See Saad-Ghorayeb, Amal: Hizbullah: Politics & Religion, Pluto Press, London, 2002.
[4] Sofia Maria Tagliabue, Inside Hezbollah: The al-Mahdi Scouts, Education, and Resistance, Digest of Middle East Studies Vol 24(1), 2015.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
According to Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRBC), citing various sources, Al Mahdi Scouts were founded in 1985 and their goals include ‘educating a younger generation to continue its struggle against Israel.’ Hezbollah Scouts are part of ‘the party's religion-themed youth and recruitment programs and are reported to be a feeder for Hezbollah's armed force.’[7]
[7] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Recruitment practices of Hezbollah, including instances of forced recruitment; consequences for those that refuse to join and their family members, including instances of torture; state protection (2010-October 2013), 4 November 2013, LBN104638.E ,
In his 2011 paper, Joining Hezbollah, Nicholas Blanford provided a detailed account of Hezbollah’s approach to and methods of recruitment. He stated:
Hezbollah deploys recruiters in every village and neighborhood where the party wields influence to look out for likely prospects among the local young men and women. The recruiter is looking for pious, disciplined, modest, intelligent, healthy, well-behaved individuals who could fit into Hezbollah’s way of life… After observing a potential recruit for a period of months, even years, the recruiter will make his move, inquiring whether he or she would consider joining Hezbollah. If the person accepts there follows an intensive initial phase known as tahdirat, or “preparation,” lasting up to a year, in which recruits are taught the ideological foundations of Hezbollah…
The new recruits absorb the principles of the Islamic revolution in Iran, obedience to the wali al-faqih[the head of an Islamic state, according to the system of wilayat al-faqih, which holds that the preeminent religious authority should be the supreme ruler], and enmity toward Israel. They are taught the Islamic texts according to the interpretation of Hezbollah’s clerics, and learn to pursue the “greater jihad” of spiritual transformation to bring them closer to God. “The religious lessons are first,” says the Chief. “Religion first, before you even see a gun.”…
After a recruit has passed through the initial tahdirat phase, he will enter the second stage of induction, known as intizam, or commitment, which also lasts around a year, during which the rigors of party discipline are instilled along with basic military training.[8]
[8] Nicholas Blanford, Joining Hezbollah, The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Fall 2011,
According to the IRBC, Hezbollah’s membership is based on ‘allegiance to the organization's ideological program’. Citing Blanford, IRBC noted that ‘motivations for joining Hezbollah include "religious observance, hostility towards Israel, and the Shia commitment to justice and dignity... many young Shias naturally gravitate towards an organization that has helped empower their community in Lebanon and [Hezbollah] has earned respect for its martial exploits over the years".’[9]
[9] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Recruitment practices of Hezbollah, including instances of forced recruitment; consequences for those that refuse to join and their family members, including instances of torture; state protection (2010-October 2013), 4 November 2013, LBN104638.E,
As it was put to the applicant at the hearing, the above information casts serious doubt on his claims, particularly in relation to how he had joined Hezbollah Scouts and the education and training he had received. He responded that Hezbollah’s main priority is educated people, those like him were ‘just numbers’. I noted that I had doubts about this claim. I also had doubts about his claim that Hezbollah had a big presence in North Lebanon in the late 1990s, actively recruiting Sunnis in Tripoli and [Town] to boost its membership. According to the IRBC, Hezbollah’s bases and areas of operation are in Shi’a-dominated areas, including sections of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa Valley.[10] Information dating back to 2011 also suggests that Hezbollah seeks only those who are unreservedly committed to its ideology. It has many staunch Shi’a supporters in the south and has no shortage of volunteers.[11] With regard to recruitment, the applicant stated that Hezbollah was recruiting hundreds if not thousands amongst other sects, including Christians, Alawis and Druze. I have found no persuasive evidence in any of the sources consulted to support this claim and I do not accept it.
[10] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Hezbollah, including areas of operation, political involvement, military activity, recruitment practices, mistreatment of citizens and state protection, 16 November 2011, LBN103846.E, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Hezbollah, including areas of operation, political involvement, military activity, recruitment practices, mistreatment of citizens and state protection, 16 November 2011, LBN103846.E, See also Nicholas Blanford, Joining Hezbollah, The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, Fall 2011,
In his post hearing submission, Mr Al-Fadhli stated that when the applicant was questioned at the hearing about ‘Hezbollah's sectarian alignment’, he ‘explained that as a young individual, he did not understand the sectarian dynamics of Lebanon. He now identifies as non-religious and does not differentiate between sects. His early association with Hezbollah was driven by financial necessity rather than ideological alignment.’ In view of the country information set out above, these explanations do not satisfactorily resolve my concerns and, in fact, cast further doubt on the applicant’s evidence.
I find the applicant’s claims regarding joining Hezbollah Scouts at the age of [age] and his continued association with the Scouts or Hezbollah until 2001 or 2004 highly doubtful, unpersuasive, and lacking in credibility. I do not accept that, if he was a member of Hezbollah Scouts for three or four years, he did not have, and continues not to have, an understanding of the sectarian dynamics of Lebanon. I do not accept that the applicant had ever joined Hezbollah Scouts, was a member of Hezbollah or had had any formal association or involvement with the organisation, any of its affiliates or members. I do not accept that he received any form of education or training. I do not accept that he was asked or ‘coerced’ into gathering information or spy on anyone in his area, including Syrians or members of his own family.
As I have rejected the applicant’s claims of any form of membership of or association with Hezbollah in the past, it follows that I do not accept his claims that he is of any interest to Hezbollah for the reasons he has provided or for any other reason. In reaching this view, I have also relied on problematic aspects of the applicant’s evidence regarding why Hezbollah is interested in him now.
According to his own evidence, which I have rejected, the applicant was a low level member of Hezbollah Scouts until the age of 18 and had limited involvement with the organisation after completing his compulsory military service. At the hearing, he stated that he had no further involvement with Hezbollah after 2001 and remained in the same area in Lebanon until 2006 when he migrated to Australia. He stated that between 2001 and 2006, despite rebuffing or avoiding Hezbollah, he was not subjected to any harm or any form of pressure to rejoin the organisation. In his oral evidence to the delegate, although he stated that he stayed with Hezbollah until 2004, again he did not claim to have faced any harm from Hezbollah prior to his departure from Lebanon in 2006. At the hearing he also confirmed that following his departure from Lebanon in 2006, he had received no communication from Hezbollah and the organisation had never approached any member of his family to ask about him. According to his evidence, after this period of apparent disinterest, Hezbollah became interested in him again when he travelled to Lebanon to visit his dying mother in 2018. The reasons provided for this renewed interest in his evidence and the submissions made on his behalf included not staying in touch with Hezbollah, turning his back on and betraying the organisation, leaving Hezbollah without permission, being liable for extortion and being forcefully recruited as a combatant due to Hezbollah’s losses in other territories. However, for the following reasons, I found the explanations put forward by the applicant for Hezbollah’s renewed interest in him highly problematic and unconvincing.
Firstly, the applicant has repeatedly claimed that he feared being arrested, jailed, tortured, killed and/or forcibly recruited as a combatant by Hezbollah. These claims, however, appear to be incongruent with the manner in which he claimed he was approached by Hezbollah during his month-long stay in Lebanon in 2018.
In the statement submitted in support of his Protection visa application, the applicant stated that during his 2018 visit, he was approached by ‘high-ranking Hizballah (sic) members’ who wanted to know why he had not ‘stayed in touch’ and demanded ‘a large amount of money to keep quiet about [his] absence’ as they considered him to have ‘used them and then turned [his] back on them’. At his Departmental interview, the applicant told the delegate that he did not go out and did not do anything during his visit in 2018. While he was in Lebanon, he saw ‘some people’ but he tried to avoid them, and that he had a ‘normal life’ until he returned to Australia. At the hearing, he stated that soon after he travelled to Lebanon in 2018, his mother passed away. One of his old associates attended his mother’s wake and asked him where he had been, what he has been doing and if he has saved any money. The same person returned a few days later, but he spoke to the applicant’s father. Despite remaining at his family home during his entire stay in Lebanon, he had no further encounters with anyone else and ‘nothing’ else happened before he returned to Australia. Mr Al-Fadhli characterised the applicant’s experience in Lebanon in 2018 differently by stating: ‘[The applicant] received credible warnings from a trusted individual that Hezbollah members had inquired about him.’ Regardless of the changing characterisation of the applicant’s claimed encounter with Hezbollah in 2018 throughout the process, which casts doubt on his claims, he did not claim in his written evidence to the Department, at the interview or at the hearing that any further action was taken by members of Hezbollah during the remaining period of his stay in Lebanon.
I do not find it credible that, after showing a manifest lack of interest in the applicant in the years prior and after his departure from Lebanon in 2006, Hezbollah or its members had shown a sudden renewed interest in him for not staying in contact, being disloyal or having betrayed the organisation in 2018. I also do not find it credible that being presented with the opportunity to settle any scores with the applicant during his period of stay in Lebanon, other than a single conversation, Hezbollah took no further steps to punish, admonish, detain, or harm the applicant in any way prior to his departure. Indeed, according to Mr Al-Fadhli’s post interview submissions, Hezbollah ‘has the means to monitor and target individuals both within Lebanon and abroad’, the organisation’s ‘intelligence network is robust, and they have a history of dealing with those they consider disloyal in a ruthless manner’ and would be able to ‘use their network of operatives and sympathisers within the Lebanese government, military, and security forces to track and potentially detain the applicant.’ IRBC has also noted that Hezbollah maintains an extensive security apparatus, political organisation, and social services networks, and is often described as a 'state within a state'.[12] If Hezbollah had any adverse interest in the applicant in the manner described and for the reasons provided, it had ample opportunity to arrest, detain, otherwise keep, or harm the applicant in Lebanon.
[12] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Recruitment practices of Hezbollah, including instances of forced recruitment; consequences for those that refuse to join and their family members, including instances of torture; state protection (2010-October 2013), 4 November 2013, LBN104638.E,
Secondly, the applicant did not claim at any point prior to the hearing that Hezbollah had pursued or sought information about him in the years following his departure from Lebanon in 2018 by, for example, approaching his father who continues to reside at the same house in [Village]. However, as noted above, the applicant submitted at the hearing a letter purportedly issued by Hezbollah seeking information about him. When asked at the hearing how he had obtained this letter, the applicant stated that one of his brothers in Lebanon, [Mr C], had sent him the letter, but he was unable to provide any other information as to how the letter was obtained by his brother. The applicant’s brother and witness, [Mr B], told me that [Mr C] is [an Occupation] and whenever he crosses the Lebanese border with Syria ‘they’ ask about the applicant. [Mr B], however, also did not know how [Mr C] had obtained the letter.
As it was put to the applicant at the hearing, the letter is undated, and the copy exhibits notable discrepancies in the print quality. I noted that while the main body text appears crisp and well-defined, several key authenticating elements, namely the letterhead, organisational emblem, signature, and official stamp impression display markedly diminished ink density. These authentication features appear faded or faint in contrast to the text content. The lack of uniform print quality across all elements suggests the document may be a composite and the clear text appears to have been added to a pre-existing document template or merged from different sources.
In his post-hearing submission, Mr Al-Fadhli provided a number of explanations in response to the concerns I had raised with the applicant at the hearing in relation to the letter. Mr Al-Fadhli stated that ‘In Lebanon, such letters are often used to deliver threats covertly, where the inclusion of a date might expose the sender's timing and intentions, increasing the risk of traceability.’ It is not clear on what evidence Mr Al-Fadhli has based his assertions regarding ‘such’ letters in Lebanon. More importantly, its unclear as to why Hezbollah would be concerned about traceability given that the letter is purportedly issued by Hezbollah’s ‘General Secretariat, Presidency of the Executive Council’ and openly signed by the [Position 1] of the Executive Council, [name]. I do not accept as a credible explanation that the letter did not include a date in order to conceal ‘the sender's timing and intentions’. The purported text of the letter clearly outlines the intention of the sender. I do not accept this explanation to address my concerns. Nor do I accept Mr Al-Fadhli’s explanation that the problematic features of the letter are due to the mode of transmission (being photographed and sent through WhatsApp).
Moreover, as I pointed out at hearing, I found the content of the letter to be problematic and highly dubious. I do not consider it credible that after years of inaction, only recently Hezbollah’s Executive Council has issued a cryptic letter to the effect that the applicant is wanted with five other individuals, without stating a reason. No reasonable explanation was provided as to why Hezbollah’s Executive Council, one of the group’s more powerful bodies, would be interested in the applicant many years after he claims to have left Hezbollah Scouts as a low level member and when Hezbollah had every opportunity to arrest or question him 2018. I find that the letter to be inauthentic and I am of the view that it has been manufactured for the purpose of assisting the applicant in achieving an immigration outcome. I do not put any weight on this letter in supporting the applicant’s claims.
Thirdly, I did not find the applicant’s claims that Hezbollah is interested in him due to his perceived lack of loyalty to be convincing. In his oral submission at the hearing, Mr Al-Fadhli submitted that those who leave Hezbollah face threats and are perceived to have betrayed Hezbollah, leading to serious consequences. As I had found no persuasive information in the country information sources I had consulted to lend support to this claim, I provided Mr Al-Fadhli the opportunity to submit evidence in support his submission following the hearing.
In his post-hearing submission, Mr Al-Fadhli contended that Hezbollah ‘has a history of targeting former members to maintain discipline and prevent leaks’, that ‘even low-ranking members can be perceived as threats if they sever ties without permission’ and ‘intimidation of defectors serves as a deterrent to others, reinforcing the organisation’s authority and cohesion.’ In support of these contentions, Mr Al-Fadhli referred to one source: a transcript of podcast dated 15 November 2023 and presented by Matthew Levitt, Former-Wexler Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The podcast focuses on Hezbollah’s Unit 121, a secretive assassination squad that operates directly under Hezbollah’s leader. According to the transcript, the Unit has been implicated in targeted assassination of several high profile individuals in the past, including Rafik Hariri former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Gebran Tueni, Lebanese politician and journalist, Mohammad Chatah, former Lebanese finance minister, Major-General Francois al-Hajj, Wissam, Samir Kassir, a prominent journalist, and Lokman Slim, a Lebanese Shi’a activist, commentator, film-maker, and prominent Hezbollah critic. The Unit also targeted various anti-Hezbollah politicians, military figures and activists associated with the March 14 Coalition.
The transcript makes it clear that Unit 121 primarily targets high-profile individuals who pose a threat to the group’s political interests or oppose its influence in Lebanon. While Levitt comments in passing that Hezbollah also targeted members of its own Shi’a community who opposed the group, this appears to be a reference to Lokman Slim. No other examples have been cited. There was no information in the transcript to suggest that ordinary members who have drifted away from or have severed ties with Hezbollah have been targeted by the group or Unit 121 due to ‘perceived disloyalty’. This is consistent with information encountered in other sources, indicating that Hezbollah does not generally threaten or interfere with people on an individual basis unless that person is a security threat to them or has had a previous clash or conflict with them, or with one of their members.[13] In its most recent Country Information Report in relation to Lebanon, DFAT noted that Hezbollah’s perceived adversaries are political activists and journalists. Hezbollah is particularly attuned to and oppressive of critics within the Shi’a community, its support base. However, ‘Hezbollah activists will only revert to direct threats, including of violence, if they feel their power is genuinely threatened.’[14]
[13] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Lebanon: Hezbollah, including areas of operation, political involvement, military activity, recruitment practices, mistreatment of citizens and state protection, 16 November 2011, LBN103846.E, DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report – Lebanon, June 2023.
The applicant’s profile does not suggest that he would have been considered a security threat to Hezbollah, and he did not claim to have been involved in any kind of conflict with the organisation or any of its members. Nor did he claim to have criticised or opposed Hezbollah publicly in any way or form. Once again, as noted earlier, the applicant was not approached, admonished, or reprimanded by Hezbollah prior to his departure from Lebanon in 2006 and no attempt was made to communicate with him (through his family, for example) following his departure. I do not accept the applicant’s claim that Hezbollah has any adverse interest in him for any perceived disloyalty.
Another reason the applicant put forward for Hezbollah’s claimed interest in him was forced recruitment as a combatant in Syria. He stated at the hearing that one of his friends was taken to Syria and was killed. As I put to him at the hearing, I have found no persuasive information in any sources to suggest that Hezbollah has ever been engaged in forcefully recruiting members or combatants. Despite Hezbollah’s declining support among Shi’as due to its involvement in conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, ‘it still garners significant backing, particularly from the Shia community and, to some extent, from other sects with its role as a resistance movement against Israel.’[15] Hezbollah also continues to provide pull factors like financial and social incentives to recruit members. According to Seda Güneş,
Hezbollah strategically leverages its vast network of financial institutions, social services, security apparatus, educational opportunities, and employment prospects to lure vulnerable youth. The organization presents the fight as a job, complete with contracts, salaries, and benefits, making it an attractive option for those with limited opportunities. It offers fighters monthly salaries paid in dollars, along with benefits for their families.[16]
[15] Seda Güneş, The Arsonist and the Firefighter: How Hezbollah Radicalizes and Recruits Youth, Wilson Centre, 1 October 2024,
[16] Ibid.
I do not accept the applicant’s claims in this regard and find that Hezbollah did not and does not have any interest in forcefully recruiting him to fight for its causes or against it enemies within or outside of Lebanon.
In his evidence in support of his brother, [Mr B] stated that the applicant would go camping with a ‘group’ when he was young. After a while, the group asked him to monitor other people. The applicant then came to Australia, and he did not want to return to Lebanon until 2018, when their mother’s health significantly deteriorated. He added that his brother was very fearful of returning to Lebanon in 2018. I asked [Mr B] why this group is after his brother. He replied that the applicant had joined the group for financial gain, and he was like an employee. When pressed, he said his brother had joined Hezbollah Scouts and did not know who these people were exactly. When pressed again, he said he did not know why Hezbollah was after his brother after so many years. [Mr B] did not provide any other evidence. I did not find him to be a compelling witness and I did not find his testimony to lend weight to the applicant’s claims and evidence or to address the concerns I have set out above.
For the above reasons, I find the applicant’s claims regarding his fear of Hezbollah not to be credible or reliable. I do not accept that the applicant had ever joined Hezbollah Scouts, was a member of Hezbollah or had had any formal association or involvement with the organisation, any of its affiliates or members. I do not accept that he had received any form of benefit, education, or training from the organisation. I do not accept that he was asked or ‘coerced’ into gathering information, spy on anyone in his area, including Syrians or members of his own family, or to carry out any other activities. I do not accept that he had participated in any Hezbollah related activities. I do not accept that Hezbollah was ever interested in the applicant for the reasons he has provided, namely for leaving the organisation, not staying in contact, ‘turning his back’ on the organisation, being disloyal, and for forced recruitment purposes. I do not accept that members of Hezbollah had approached, enquired about, or questioned him during his 2018 visit to Lebanon. I do not accept that anyone had demanded any amount of money from him to keep quiet about his ‘absence’ or for any other reason during the same visit. I do not accept that he ever was or is wanted by Hezbollah for any reason. I do not accept that his name was or is on any list of wanted individuals. I do not accept that he would be arrested by Hezbollah. I do not accept that he would be coerced into becoming a combatant and forced to fight in Syria or against Israel. I do not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant would face serious harm at the hands of Hezbollah, any of its members, associates or affiliates, or individuals working for the Lebanese government, army, and police. I also do not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant would face significant harm in Lebanon by Hezbollah or anyone else.
Economy
In the statement provided in support of his Protection visa application, the applicant stated economic hardship had also played a role in his decision to leave Lebanon in 2006, as his family was ‘very poor’ and there was pressure on him to make money. At the interview, when he was asked by the delegate about his ‘economic’ claims, he stated that the ‘economy in Lebanon is dead, there is no life, nothing there.’ The applicant did not peruse or add to these claims at the hearing.
I accept that Lebanon has experienced a severe economic crisis since 2020. Poverty rates have increased significantly and ‘there is little in the way of social welfare.’[17] I appreciate the applicant may be concerned about his economic prospects in Lebanon. However, all Lebanese nationals are impacted by these economic conditions in the country. There was no persuasive evidence before me to suggest that the applicant would be denied the capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind in Lebanon that would, in turn, threaten his capacity to subsist for any of the reasons set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Nor do I accept that he would experience significant economic hardship that would threaten his capacity to subsist, or would be denied access to services, including medical services, for any reason. The applicant has close family members in Lebanon, including brothers and sisters, who would be able to provide him with some assistance and support if necessary. I do not accept that the economic and other adjustment challenges the applicant could face upon being removed to Lebanon give rise to a real chance of serious harm for one or more of the reasons mentioned in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
[17] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report – Lebanon, June 2023.
I also do not accept, on the evidence before me, that any economic challenges the applicant might face upon being removed to Lebanon would amount to significant harm that would, in any event, be ‘intentionally inflicted’ as required by the definition of ‘torture’, ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ and ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ in s 5(1) of the Act. I find that there is no real risk that the applicant would face significant harm arising from the state of economy in Lebanon.
Other claims
I have considered the applicant’s evidence that he was imprisoned for 15 days in in the late 1990s for having absconded while completing his compulsory military service. He confirmed at the hearing his evidence to the delegate that he had suffered no further consequences and had lived a normal life following his release and discharge from the army. I find that there is no real chance that the applicant would face serious harm or a real risk that he would experience significant harm in Lebanon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future as a consequence of his brief abscondment and the penalty imposed during his military service.
I accept [Ms A]’s evidence at the hearing in relation to her distress and anxiety arising from her husband’s absence over the past few years due to his incarceration and the prospect of his removal from Australia, which would result in her bearing sole parental responsibility for their [children]. I also appreciate that the applicant does not wish to leave his family behind. However, I have rejected the applicant’s claims for protection, and I am of the view that he has fabricated his claims regarding his fear of Hezbollah in order to achieve an immigration outcome.
Conclusions
After considering all of the applicant’s claims, I find that there is no real chance that he would face serious harm in Lebanon for the reason of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of any particular social group. I find that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). I am not 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 would be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a)–(e) of the definition of ‘torture’ in s 5(1) of the Act. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, or pain or suffering, either physical or mental, such as to meet the definition of ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ in s 5(1). Nor am I satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that he would suffer such harm as to meet the definition of ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ in s 5(1), which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty. I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no evidence before me to suggest that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date(s) of hearing: 14 November 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Mohamed Al-Fadhli
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.
…
0
0
0