1929007 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 2731 (15 May 2020)

Corrigendum
DIVISION:	Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:	1929007
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:	Lebanon
MEMBER:	Mila Foster
DATE OF DECISION:	15 May 2020
DATE CORRIGENDUM
SIGNED:	30 July 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:	Sydney
AMENDMENT:	The following corrections are made to the decision:
The Date of Decision should read “15 May 2020” instead of “15 May 2015”.

Mila Foster
Member

DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:	Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:	1929007
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:	Lebanon
MEMBER:	Mila Foster
DATE:	15 May 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:	Sydney
DECISION:	The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 15 May 2020 at 4:04pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Lebanon – fear of harm from individuals and groups in home country for criminal offences in Australia – threats to family and acquaintances in home country and to applicant on social media in Australia – damage to property but no personal harm – credibility – previous protection visa application withdrawn – cancellation of bridging visa, court appeals and request for ministerial intervention – country information on honour-based violence – political and security conditions – decision under review affirmed 

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65
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 dependants. 
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
1.  	This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 14 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.  	The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Lebanon, applied for the visa on 11 September 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was neither a refugee nor owed complementary protection. 
3.  	The applicant was represented on review by a migration agent. 
Criteria for a protection visa
4.  	The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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.
5.  	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.
6.  	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).
7.  	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.
8.  	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.
9.  	Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of their claims. Nor does the Tribunal have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim.
Mandatory considerations
10.  	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 (the Department), 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. DFAT produced such a report in relation to Lebanon on 19 March 2019 (DFAT Lebanon Report). 
summary of claims 
11.  	The applicant claims he will be killed if he returns to Lebanon, in what he characterised as an ‘honour crime’, because of the crimes he has committed in Australia. The applicant has been convicted of offences which include 19 counts of indecent assault against nine women who were customers of his [workplace]. 
12.  	The applicant believes he will be killed because his family in Lebanon have received threats from unidentified people to kill him. The applicant has suggested that the people or groups who may have made the threats include the daughter of one of his victims, Hezbollah, the Syrian National Party (SNP), and ISIS. 
13.  	The applicant claims the Lebanese authorities, the Lebanese Forces (a political party), and his clan would be unable to protect him from harm if he returned to Lebanon due to the deterioration in the security situation since the revolution in October 2019.  
background
14.  	The following provides context and background to the applicant’s claims. Unless indicated otherwise the details and events are not in dispute or an issue in this review. 
Personal details 
15.  	The applicant is [Age] years old. He is a [Christian] who was born in [Village 1] in northern Lebanon. He lived in Lebanon until he arrived in Australia in June 2011 on a temporary partner visa. He has not left Australia since. 
16.  	The applicant was sponsored for the temporary partner visa by his then wife. She withdrew her sponsorship two months after the applicant arrived in Australia and the applicant sought a permanent partner visa on the basis that he had been subjected to family violence by his former wife. The applicant is now divorced and has a new partner. 
17.  	Close members of the applicant’s family include his mother [and siblings]. One of his sisters, [Ms A], is an Australian citizen and resident. His mother and remaining siblings are citizens of Lebanon. The applicant’s mother has been in Australia on a series of visitor visas, medical treatment visas and bridging visas since March 2015 except for the period from [June] 2019 to [August] 2019 when she returned to Lebanon. The applicant’s brother, [Mr B], and two of his sisters live in Beirut. The fourth sister, [Ms C], lives in [Village 1].
Chronology 
18.  	In January 2013, the applicant was refused a permanent partner visa by a delegate of the Minister, was granted a bridging visa and applied to the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) for a review of the decision to refuse him a permanent partner visa. 
19.  	In May 2013 the applicant was charged with various offences including the sexual assault and indecent assault of a number of women who were customers of his [workplace]. 
20.  	In March 2014 the MRT affirmed the decision to refuse the applicant a permanent partner visa (MRT Partner Decision) and the applicant applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of the MRT’s decision. 
21.  	In July 2014 the applicant was granted a bridging visa. 
22.  	In November 2014 the applicant was remanded in prison having been refused bail in relation to the criminal charges he was facing.  
23.  	In December 2014 the applicant divorced. 
24.  	In September 2015 the applicant’s bridging visa was cancelled due to the criminal charges against him and he applied to the MRT for a review of that decision. 
25.  	In November 2015 the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review of the MRT Partner Decision. In December 2015 the applicant appealed the Federal Circuit Court’s decision to the Federal Court.  
26.  	In March 2016, the Tribunal (differently constituted) set aside the delegate’s decision to cancel the applicant’s bridging visa (Tribunal 2016 BV Decision) and the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Federal Circuit Court decision.
27.  	In April 2016, the applicant sought to appeal the Federal Court’s decision to the High Court.  
28.  	It is alleged that sometime in or about June 2016 the applicant’s brother received threats against the applicant at his home in Beirut. 
29.  	In August 2016 the High Court dismissed the applicant’s application to appeal the Federal Court decision. 
30.  	In September 2016 the applicant made a request to the Minister for ministerial intervention pursuant to s.351 of the Act. In the same month the applicant’s bridging visa ceased. 
31.  	In October 2016 the applicant’s request to the Minister was finalised as ‘not referred’. 
32.  	On 14 November 2016 the applicant lodged a protection visa application.
33.  	In November 2016 the applicant was convicted of eight counts of indecent assault and subsequently granted a bridging visa. 
34.  	In December 2016, the applicant was convicted of a further count of indecent assault and withdrew his protection visa application.  
35.  	In January 2017 the applicant’s bridging visa was cancelled because of his convictions. 
36.  	It is alleged that [in] June 2017 the applicant’s home in [Village 1] was broken into, some of the applicant’s possessions taken and a note threatening the applicant was left. 
37.  	In September 2017 the applicant was convicted of a further ten counts of indecent assault, and two other offences connected to the commission of those crimes.
38.  	In November 2017 the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. 
39.  	On 5 September 2019 the applicant was released from prison and detained in immigration detention.
40.  	As already noted the applicant applied for his current protection visa on 11 September 2019 and a bridging visa.
41.  	On 16 September 2019 the applicant was refused the bridging visa. On 18 September 2019 he applied to the Tribunal for a review of that refusal. 
42.  	On 25 September 2019 the applicant was interviewed by the delegate in relation to his protection visa application. As already noted the delegate refused to grant a protection visa on 14 October 2019 and applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision on the same day.  
43.  	[In] October 2019 the applicant’s brother allegedly found a CD at the applicant’s home in [Village 1] which contained a video of a masked man threatening to kill the applicant on his return to Lebanon (Masked Man Video).
44.  	On 19 November 2019 the Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the decision to refuse the applicant a bridging visa (2019 Tribunal BV Decision). 
45.  	A hearing was held in this review over three days on 6, 21 and 26 February 2020. 
46.  	The above details of the applicant’s convictions and sentence are based on the sentencing judgments [which] were summarised in the 2019 Tribunal BV Decision. A copy of those judgments are on the Tribunal file relating to that decision. I regard it to be an accurate summary of the applicant’s convictions and sentence set out in the sentencing judgments. I noted the convictions and sentence as set out in the summary to the applicant at hearing. He agreed that the summary accurately reflected his convictions and sentence. The summary includes details of the acts of indecent assault committed by the applicant which fall within the umbrella term of sexual violence which encompasses rape, sexual assault, indecent assault and sexual harassment. The acts committed by the applicant, without the consent of the victims, included [details omitted]. 
Recent protests and security situation in Lebanon 
47.  	The following is a brief overview of recent events in Lebanon which provides context to the applicant’s claims, particularly the claim that the Lebanese authorities would be unable to protect him due to the security situation that has arisen as a result of what the app referred to as ‘the revolution’.
48.  	On the evening of 17 October 2019, after austerity measures were announced by the government, groups of young people took to the streets of Beirut burning tyres and blocking intersections. Anti-government protests subsequently swept across the country with protestors angry about years of dire economic conditions, poor public services, corruption and the sectarian political system. The protests forced the resignation of the prime minister later that month. A new prime minister was nominated in December 2019. After three months of largely peaceful popular protests the situation escalated with rioting in Beirut on 18 and 19 January 2020 that left several hundred injured. Protesters had become frustrated by the worsening economic crisis and a continuing deadlock over the formation of a new government. However, a new government was formed shortly after and the protests began to dwindle in February 2020. 
49.  	consideration of claims and evidence 
50.  	The applicant’s claims and evidence were presented in his protection visa application, statutory declarations, letters, photographs, legal documents, videos, news reports and other documents presented to the Department and the Tribunal. The applicant gave oral evidence during an interview with the delegate and the Tribunal hearing. The applicant’s brother and [Mr D] also gave oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing. The applicant’s migration agent made written and oral submissions on the applicant’s behalf. 
51.  	In considering the claims and evidence presented by the applicant I have had regard to information from a range of other sources regarding sexual violence and honour crimes in Lebanon. 
52.  	Having considered the claims and evidence I have concluded that the applicant, his brother and [Mr D] were not credible witnesses and that their evidence is not reliable. I have concluded that the threats made against the applicant in Lebanon were not genuine threats but have been contrived. I have concluded that there is not a real chance the applicant would face harm amounting to persecution or significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) if he returned to Lebanon. I have therefore affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 
Information from other sources about honour based violence and sexual violence 
Honour based violence – general information 
53.  	Sources I have consulted indicate that honour crimes or honour based violence (HBV) is a global phenomenon although it is more prevalent in parts of the Middle East and South Asia, North and East Africa. 
54.  	There is no universal definition of HBV. It is generally taken to be violence or an incident committed against an individual with the purported goal of restoring honour to the perpetrator, family or community. It is committed against an individual who is perceived to have brought shame or disgrace to themselves, their family or community by deviating from social or cultural norms. 
55.  	Victims of HBV are overwhelmingly women and girls but it can also affect men and boys. The perpetrators of HBV especially of honour killings are typically male family members often husbands, fathers and brothers but women can be involved either actively or tacitly. 
56.  	HBV against female victims is often about controlling their behaviour especially their sexual behaviour. Women and girls tend to be victims for having contact or engaging in sexual activity with males including pre-marital sex and adultery (real or imagined), rejecting an arranged marriage, wanting to leave a marriage, and even for being the victim of rape. Males have reportedly been victims of HBV because of their homosexuality, for rejecting an arranged marriage, and dating or marrying a woman against their family’s wishes.  
57.  	HBV can take many forms and includes murder, female genital cutting, forced marriage, as well as other forms of physical, sexual, and psychological violence including domestic violence. 
58.  	Reliable figures on HBV are limited and is generally regarded as underreported. A number of the sources I consulted refer to an estimate made by the United Nations Population Fund in 2000 that about 5000 women and girls are murdered by family members each year in honour killings. 
Honour based violence in Lebanon 
59.  	The sources I found about HBV in Lebanon reveal the following regarding the incidence of HBV, the nature of the violence and its treatment under the legal system. 
60.  	The phrase ‘crimes of honour’ is commonly used in Lebanon to describe the killing of women within the family. Where the gender of the victims and perpetrators of HBV was referred to in the sources, all the victims were female and almost all perpetrators were male and were the husbands, fathers and brothers of victims.
61.  	I found no official statistics of the incidents of HBV in Lebanon. The sources indicate that honour crimes in Lebanon are rare and occur occasionally and are more likely to occur in rural areas. The sources suggest that HBV may be underreported and difficult to measure but that urbanisation, proliferation of media and changing roles of women in Lebanon has made it difficult for such a crime to go unnoticed. 
62.  	According to the sources, honour crimes were historically treated leniently by the legal system in Lebanon under Article 562 of the Penal Code. While Article 562 did not explicitly refer to honour crimes it was often cited as the ‘honour crime clause’ and applied to exempt male perpetrators of HBV against their spouses or female relatives from punishment. Following an amendment on 10 February 1999 the lenient treatment of honour crimes was narrowed to allow mitigation in sentencing rather than exemption from punishment. 
63.  	Prior to the 1999 amendment Article 562 read: 
1. He who surprises his spouse or one of his [female] ascendants or descendants or his sister in the crime of adultery (in flagrante delicto) or in a situation of unlawful sexual intercourse and unintentionally kills or injures one of them shall benefit from exemption of penalty.
2. He who kills or injures if he surprises his spouse or one of his [female] ascendants or descendants or his sister in a suspicious situation with another shall benefit from a reduction in penalty.
64.  	Following the 1999 amendment the article read: 
Whosoever surprises his spouse or one of his [female] ascendants or descendants or his sister in the crime of adultery (in flagrante delicto) or in a situation of unlawful sexual intercourse, and kills or wounds one of them unintentionally shall be liable to a lesser penalty [in view of extenuating circumstances]. 
65.  	According to a 2011 source, courts almost invariably refused to accept the notion of honour to ‘justify’ the killing of women and for decades Article 562 had rarely been referred to in court proceeding documents let alone by judges. In a study of 66 trial cases from 1999 until 2007 which involved the murder of women, Article 562 was used only in 3 times or in less than 5% of the cases. Nevertheless Article 562 was said to perpetuate the notion that the state condoned HBV against women and was abolished in its entirety in August 2011.
66.  	After the repeal of Article 562, some criminal courts reportedly granted reduced sentences to male perpetrators of violence against women for reasons of honour under Article 252 of the Penal Code. That article reads:
Whosoever commits the crime in an outburst of extreme anger resulting from a grave and unlawful action of the victim shall be liable to a lesser penalty.
67.  	I found one such specific example of the application of Article 252 - the 2016 case of Manal Assi. The case was also referred to in the articles submitted by the applicant’s migration agent after the hearing. Ms Assi died after being beaten and tortured by her husband over five hours. He claimed to have committed the crime in a fit of fury after discovering his wife had been unfaithful. He was convicted of intentional homicide but his sentence was reduced from death to five years imprisonment based on Article 252 due to a number of mitigating factors including ‘honour’. On appeal the court found that Article 252 did not apply to all cases of murder of women justified by honour and increased the perpetrator’s sentence to 18 years imprisonment. Nevertheless, the court took into account the society in which the perpetrator lived and its well-established social traditions relating to the husband’s honour among other mitigating factors. I have not found reports of any other specific cases in which Article 252 or any other article of the Penal Code has been used to reduce a sentence for honour reasons. 
68.  	I found few reports of specific cases of alleged HBV in Lebanon. The following are more recent cases which were reported as honour related killings in Lebanon:
a.	in February 2013 a man killed his pregnant teenage sister, whom he had allegedly raped, in what was said to have been viewed as an honour crime,
b.	in January 2018 the husband of a woman stoned to death admitted it was an honour killing, and 
c.	in April 2018 a Syrian mother allegedly confessed to killing her daughter ‘over family reasons related to honour’. 
69.  	I found no information specifically about HBV carried out against males in Lebanon. I note however that after the hearing the applicant’s migration agent presented a report of one such case which I consider below. 
Sexual violence against women in Lebanon 
70.  	As the applicant claims that he will be killed in an honour crime due to the crimes he has committed, it is relevant to consider information about sexual violence committed by males against females in Lebanon.   
71.  	Lebanese laws do not define sexual violence but the Lebanese Penal Code criminalises and punishes certain acts of sexual violence. For example, rape outside marriage is a criminal offence with a minimum punishment of five years imprisonment and coercing a person to commit or endure an obscene act is punishable with imprisonment for a minimum of four years. The Lebanese law does not define or use the term sexual harassment but the Penal Code includes punishment for acts which may be regarded as sexual harassment. 
72.  	Sexual harassment of women and girls in the workplace and wider society is a widespread problem in Lebanon which has become normalised and hence not commonly reported. Figures indicate one out of four women in Lebanon are sexually harassed and about 13 women a month report sexual assault. 
73.  	The Penal Code is criticised as providing inadequate protection against sexual violence. For example, it does not criminalise rape within marriage and permits a perpetrator of certain acts of violence against a minor to avoid punishment or imprisonment by marrying the minor. Such provisions are said to run counter to international law and to perpetuate patriarchal, archaic norms about the ‘honour’ of victims. 
74.  	There are significant obstacles which undermine women’s ability to access justice in Lebanon in relation to sexual violence. Those obstacles include stereotypes and gender-based norms that exist in private and public spheres and are prevalent in sexual violence cases. For example, women are often blamed for being dressed in a certain manner, socialising, drinking alcohol or being out late at night. When they report sexual violence they open themselves up to suspicion of engaging in prostitution or a charge of having committed the offence of affront to public decency. An underlying assumption that women should be chaste or have a ‘good reputation’ to access protection shifts the focus from the criminal  responsibility of the perpetrator to the behaviour of the victim. A national survey conducted in 2017 showed that 80% of women in Lebanon believed that social and cultural beliefs justified sexual assault and violence against women and girls. Such attitudes can extend to police officers and judges. 
75.  	I did not find any evidence in any sources of perpetrators of sexual violence being targeted in Lebanon for committing acts of sexual violence. 
Conclusions
76.  	The information indicates that the chance that a male perpetrator of sexual violence against women being harmed or subjected to HBV in Lebanon for committing acts of sexual violence is remote at best. 
Applicant’s protection visa application 
77.  	The applicant’s protection visa application included:
a.	 A completed protection visa application form.
b.	A copy of the biodata page of his two expired Lebanese passports.
c.	A transcript of a bail application hearing held [in] June 2013 relating to the criminal charges the applicant was facing (Bail Transcript). 
d.	Written instructions dated 16 November 2016 from the applicant to his counsel in relation to his criminal trial on four counts of indecent assault of [Ms E] (Legal Instructions). 
e.	Counsel’s merit advice dated [July] 2018 pertaining to the prospect of success of an appeal in relation to one of the applicant’s convictions (Merit Advice). 
78.  	According to the applicant’s protection visa application form, he received the assistance of his sister, [Ms A], to complete the form. 
Claims made on protection visa application form
79.  	In relation to what the applicant thought would happen to him if he returned to Lebanon, the applicant stated:
I am currently detained at [immigration] Detention Centre having been charged and convicted, this has affected me in all aspects. It is also affected my brother [Mr B] who has been arrested and threatened. People attacked his house in East Beirut, asking about me. 
80.  	At his interview with the delegate the applicant stated that his brother had not been arrested as stated on the form. I consider this change in his claims further below. 
81.  	The applicant indicated on the form that he thought he would be harmed or mistreated if he returned to Lebanon. The form requested details about the type of harm or mistreatment he was likely to experience, the person/people who would be responsible for the harm or mistreatment, and why they would harm or mistreat him. The applicant stated:
I will be harmed if I return to Lebanon because people are threatening me via my brother [Mr B], and specially after being convicted of the charges. 
82.  	The applicant did not specify the nature of the threats made against him in Lebanon or the nature of the harm he would face if he returned. He indicated that the threats and harm were connected to his convictions in Australia but he did not explain how. He did not indicate who had threatened him or who he believed would harm him if he returned to Lebanon. 
Bail Transcript, Legal Instructions and Merit Advice 
83.  	The applicant did not explain the relevance of the Bail Transcript, Legal Instructions and Merit Advice to the claims he had made on the protection visa form. 
84.  	The Bail Transcript and Merit Advice do not relate to any of the threats made in Lebanon and do not indicate any harm the applicant would face in Lebanon if he returned. I thus give those documents no weight. 
85.  	In the Legal Instructions the applicant claimed that members of [Ms E]’s family attended his premises around the time he was charged and assaulted him, that he suspected [Ms E]’s family had stolen a CCTV camera from his shop, that an unknown woman stated that her husband was in the police and could get him deported, there was a conspiracy between the [E] family and the police to prevent an investigation into the theft and assault, when [Ms E] complained to the police a [E] family employee went with her and there was a conspiracy between them to lie, and [Ms E]’s niece/daughter had made [Social media] posts seeking people to report him after [Ms E]’s complaint. The applicant subsequently presented further evidence about the [Social media] posts which I consider below. At the interview the applicant indicated that the complaint made against him by [Ms E] was ‘set up’ and that he was innocent. However, at the hearing he acknowledged the crimes he had been convicted of. At the interview and the hearing the applicant claimed that the police refused to accept a report from him about the theft of the CCTV camera and assault. He claimed that given he was not afforded protection in relation to the crimes committed against him in Australia he could not expect to be protected by the Lebanese authorities. I do not regard that as a logical argument but in any event the applicant will not require protection from the Lebanese authorities because I do not accept that he will face serious harm or significant harm. 
Additional evidence submitted to the Department prior to interview 
86.  	The applicant indicated on the protection visa application form that he would be providing documents from the Lebanese government and police, his lawyer in Lebanon and the media in Australia. He provided such documents in three emails he sent to the Department on 24 September 2019. 
87.  	In the first email the applicant forwarded:
a.	24 pages of [Social media] comments (Social Media Comments),
b.	seven photographs, 
c.	another copy of the Legal Instructions, and 
d.	an internet link to a video of the President of the Lebanese Forces who was subsequently identified as Samir Geagea (Samir Geagea Video).
88.  	In the second email the applicant sent: 
a.	a written statement made by [Ms F] on 27 August 2014, 
b.	another copy of the Bail Transcript, and 
c.	another copy of the Merit Advice. 
89.  	In the third email the applicant submitted: 
a.	a certified copy of a complaint dated [September] 2016 (written in Arabic and accompanied by an English translation) made to the ‘appeal prosecutor in [Lebanon]’ on the applicant’s behalf by [Mr D] (the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint), 
b.	a certified copy of a report dated [June] 2017 (written in Arabic and accompanied by an English translation) which was prepared by two police officers from the [Town 1] police station (Record of Evidence Report), and 
c.	a letter dated 20 June 2018 (written in Arabic and accompanied by an English translation) written by [Mr D] to the applicant ([Mr D]’s First Letter).
Social Media Comments 
90.  	The 24 pages consist of social media comments which appear to have made in May 2013. Most seem to have been made in response to a [Social media] post by the [State 1] Police [in] May 2013. The post stated that indecent assault charges were going to be laid against a [Suburb] [Occupation 1] and that detectives wanted to speak to other clients of the [workplace]. 
91.  	The comments are varied. Some ask questions such as the identity of the [Occupation 1] and location of the [workplace], some express disgust, others note that the charges were allegations that had not been proven, and some comment favourably on the applicant’s character. 
92.  	The 24 pages include the social media profile of [Ms G] and comments made by her. The applicant referred to [Ms G] in the Instructions as [Ms E]’s ‘niece/daughter’. At the hearing the applicant stated [Ms G] was the daughter of one of his victims. According to [Ms G]’s profile at the time she made her comments, she was a [Age]-year-old student at an Australian college. She identified the applicant as the accused in her comments and asked others to come forward. I do not regard that as threatening. In one comment [Ms G] said ‘This world is full of dogs and every one will get there day. But the ones that hurt my family will get it sooner that expected’ ([Ms G]’s Comment). During his interview with the delegate the applicant indicated that people were aware of his convictions because it was all over social media and referred to [Ms G]’s comment as a threat. At the hearing the applicant referred to [Ms G] as making a ‘direct threat’. However, [Ms G]’s Comment is vague and ambiguous. It does not contain an explicit threat of harm against the applicant let alone of physical harm or violence. I do not regard it as a threat. 
93.  	I consider the Social Media Comments and [Ms G]’s Comment further below. 
The photographs 
94.  	The photographs are undated. They appear to be of unidentified women in a [workplace] and a social media account called [Social media account name]. 
95.  	The applicant did not explain the relevance of the photos of the women. They neither support nor undermine his claims. I give them no weight. 
96.  	Posted on the [Social media account name] is what appears to be a picture of the applicant [performing a work task with a woman] and the comment [deleted]. On review the applicant presented further evidence about the [Social media account name]. I thus consider it further below. 
Samir Geagea Video 
97.  	The video did not play when I clicked on the link provided in the email to the Department. On review the applicant provided a USB stick which contained a copy of the video and a translation from Arabic into English of a speech made by Samir Geagea in the video. I consider the speech further below. 
[Ms F]’s statement 
98.  	[Ms F]’s statement was prepared in connection with one of the applicant’s criminal trials. The applicant did not explain the relevance of the statement to his claims for protection. It does not appear relevant to the applicant’s claim that he has been threatened in Lebanon and would be harmed if he returned to Lebanon for the reasons he has claimed. Hence, I give [Ms F]’s statement no weight. 
Appeal Prosecutor Complaint 
99.  	In the complaint, [Mr D] states:
a.	.. after marrying in Lebanon, the applicant left for Australia in June 2011. Shortly after arriving in Australia his relationship with his wife worsened and their marriage was annulled so that each could start a new life, however, the applicant was surrounded by ‘disasters and faced conspiracies’ so that he was not able to live happily in Australia or Lebanon.
b.	The applicant was subjected to harassment and threats through his brother [Mr B] at his (brother’s) house in [Suburb] (in Beirut) by unknown people. At first the unknown people asked about the applicant through the intercom of the brother’s building. This happened several times. On the last occasion, about two months before, an unknown (person) rang the intercom hysterically and once it was answered by ‘the owner’, he asked about the applicant. The owner replied that the applicant was in Australia. The person then shouted, cursed, made insults, and expressed profanity and disrespect toward the applicant. The person stated ‘Let your brother [the applicant] understand not to even try to come to Lebanon, because if he comes, we will make him disappear so nobody could find him.’
c.	The applicant was making a ‘penal complaint’ due to the ‘repeated threats’ so as to ‘ward off the danger threatening his life’. 
d.	The threats of kidnapping or maybe murder and the profanity, cursing and disrespect amounted to a crime punishable under Articles 574 and 385 of the Lebanese Penal Code.
e.	By submitting the complaint as a ‘personal claim’ the applicant was requesting that an investigation be carried out in order to reveal the identity of the person or persons, investigate them, arrest them, sanction them harshly and obtain an undertaking from them to abstain from approaching the applicant or any member of his family. 
100.  	There is nothing in the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint about the charges the applicant was facing in Australia at the time, any suggestion that the threats were related to the charges, or any indication of who may have been responsible for the threats. I consider the complaint further below. 
Record of Evidence Report 
101.  	According to the subject heading of this document it is an investigation report ‘about the claim submitted by [Ms C] in [Village 1] locality against unknown for the crime of entering her brother’s house by violent breakage and threat’. The report sets out two slightly different accounts of what [Ms C] told the police officers however they are not critical and I refer to them below for completeness only. 
102.  	According to page 1 of the report, when [Ms C] went to check on her brother’s home in [Village 1] the day before, she found the glass of the main door near the lock broken so that she could open the door without inserting the key. According to page 2 she had gone to check on her parents’ home in [Village 1] the day before when she found the main door broken by a hard tool near the lock and when she put the key in the lock the door opened automatically. 
103.  	According to page 1, upon entering the house [Ms C] found a piece of paper on the floor which had the following typed on it by computer:
[The applicant] we warn you that we will follow and presume you everywhere and wherever you are on the Lebanese territory. You will not save from us. You are aware of what you convicted for acts you have done in Australia in contradiction to the ethics and tribal traditional customs. We will not have rest prior to punishing you. If you ever think to return to the country nobody will know where you will disappear, you will not have a rest neither you nor your family …. What will come at a later stage will be enormous, this is only the beginning. (Tribunal emphasis) 
104.  	According to page 2, [Ms C] provided a photocopy of the threatening note to the officers. 
105.  	According to page 1, [Ms C] also saw [Amount] pounds on the floor that had been taken from the applicant’s wallet which included his personal papers, photos, individual and family civil status records, driving licence and other personal items. According to page 2, [Ms C] saw [Amount] Lebanese pounds thrown on the floor and when she checked her brother’s bag behind the door she found it was not in its place. She searched the house but could not find it. It contained her brother’s individual and familial civil status records, driving license and some personal documents all of which were ‘lost’. 
106.  	According to page 2, [Ms C] viewed the note as a threat against her brother and the purpose (of the break in) was not theft. Further, she stated that she did not know the reasons (for the threat) and did not suspect anybody. 
107.  	The report states that [Ms C] wished to submit a claim against ‘unknown’ for the crime of entering the house by violence, theft and threat to her brother. She requested an investigation to discover the ‘actor’, reveal his identity and arrest and punish him. 
108.  	The report states that police officers visited the house where they found a broken window glass near the lock which allowed a hand to pass through it and glass scattered inside the house. They found a hook to the right of the door where the lost bag had allegedly been ‘fixed’. They found no other damage or items scattered. The officers did not mention finding [Amount] Lebanese pounds. They state that they then contacted the general prosecutor in the North who instructed them to leave the report open for 48 hours and ‘in the negative’ to close it. The report states that the officers kept the report open for that period but were not able to reach a positive result despite ‘the cover and open investigations’ they carried out. They thus closed the report [in] June 2017. 
109.  	The report does not indicate what other investigation or action the officers took during the 48 hour period the report was open. I consider the report further below. 
[Mr D]’s First Letter
110.  	In this letter [Mr D] tells the applicant the following. 
a.	The ‘penal complaint … took the judicial process without finding the identity of the perpetrators’ and the perpetrators of the break-in at the applicant’s house in [Village 1] had not been revealed and had not been arrested. 
b.	It was thus his duty to advise the applicant to stay in Australia because the person who threatened to kill him may get him the moment he arrives at Beirut International Airport. 
111.  	As I did not find [Mr D] a credible witness and have concluded that the threat referred to in the complaint was contrived, I give his letter no weight. 
Evidence given at delegate’s interview 
112.  	The delegate’s interview with the applicant was conducted on 25 September 2019. I have listened to a recording of that interview and had regard to the evidence given which included the following. 
113.  	The applicant stated that as his charges were published in the social media and media, people had found out about his convictions, inquired about him in Lebanon and made threats against him because of the customs and traditions of his tribe. Initially he seemed to indicate all the victims of his crimes were Lebanese.
114.  	The applicant appeared to quote [Ms G]’s Comment and called it a threat. The delegate appeared to ask the applicant whether [Ms G] or her family were responsible for the threats in Lebanon. The applicant replied that he could not say it was them without evidence but she had mentioned his name on her [Social media] page in May 2013 and said more people needed to come forward.
115.  	The applicant seemed to quote from the Record of Evidence Report. He said he did not think the police tried to find the person/s responsible for the June 2017 break-in and threatening note. He said he thought the police either knew who committed the acts but because of the nature of his convictions they thought he was a worthless person and did not deserve protection or they found who was responsible and did a cover up. He said he suspected that is what happened because the threatening note stated he would be found anywhere in Lebanon and a person who has someone in government can do anything. 
116.  	The applicant told the delegate that he also believed he would be harmed because of the intercom calls his brother had received in 2016. The applicant stated that his brother had tried to report the incidents to the police several times but the police refused to take a report and told his brother to go away. The applicant said that was why he went to a lawyer to obtain an order from a judge to have the matter investigated. Asked whether the police found out who was responsible, the applicant replied that they did not. He said he did not believe it was investigated. He said the country was controlled by Hezbollah and the SNP. He said the police did nothing because they knew who had committed the acts and were not interested in protecting him or it could be that the group was well protected. 
117.  	The delegate questioned the applicant about who he believed may have threatened him. The applicant said he did not have evidence and could not lie. Nevertheless, the applicant suggested that those who have power in Lebanon such as Hezbollah and the SNP may have been responsible. The delegate asked whether it could be the family or tribal members of the victims of his crimes. The applicant said it could be and that it was very likely because it was against tribal traditions. The applicant added that what he had done was ‘out of the thinking’ of Muslims and it was easy for them to kill and ISIS killed people for those things before. However, the applicant said, he had no direct evidence. Asked again whether it could be family members of the victims of his crimes, the applicant replied it was possible, that everything was possible because some of them were from Lebanon. The delegate asked again whether it was possible. The applicant said he could not confirm it as there were multiple options and he could not choose any and that it could be people from his town because it was on [Social media] when he was charged and his town was specifically mentioned. The applicant then referred to the post on the [Social media account name]. 
118.  	Questioned about relocating and obtaining protection from the police in Lebanon. The applicant indicated neither was possible. The reasons were not easy to follow and I will not outline them as my decision has not been made on the basis of relocation or protection.  
119.  	Asked whether there was any other reason he could not return to Lebanon the applicant said he was embarrassed about what people would think. He said he was innocent and indicated that he was still looking into appealing his conviction and that he had CCTV footage showing that he had not committed the offences. After a break the applicant was asked if he had any further evidence, he indicated that two women had set him up. He said that Australia had a strong government and police and if he could not make a statement here then he would be killed in Lebanon. He added that the Australian government was warning people not to travel to Lebanon so he could not go back to visit. 
120.  	Asked again if there was anything further, the applicant stated that one of woman who complained against him was from [Town 2] and her family have opened an office for the SNP in the town. He said the party was linked to Hezbollah which was very powerful in Lebanon. However, the applicant said, he was not pointing his finger at those people. He mentioned contacting the consulate, his passport and not being able to go to Lebanon. 
121.  	I consider the evidence the applicant gave during his interview further in connection with other evidence below. 
Post interview evidence to Department 
122.  	After the delegate’s interview the applicant presented the following documents to the Department.
Letter from [Ms H] 
123.  	This is a letter dated 24 September 2019 from [Ms H] addressed ‘To whom it may concern’. [Ms H] stated:
a.	The applicant had been [providing a service to her] for two years.
b.	She was a Lebanese Australian citizen who had family in Lebanon who she visited every two years. 
c.	During a visit to Lebanon from March to April 2016, she visited friends in [Village 1]. A large community from [Village 1] lives in Australia. Her friends asked whether she knew the applicant. She said she did and they told her they were aware that the applicant had been gaoled for sexually assaulting women. 
d.	She said the friends were very, very angry with the applicant’s behavior which was all over the social media and had brought shame to [Village 1]. 
e.	She tried to defend the applicant but they did not want to hear. They said they did not want him to return to the village, that he was not welcome, and it would be shameful to have him around.
f.	She felt sorry for the applicant, what his community and childhood friends thought about him.
g.	She did not think it was a good idea for him to return to Lebanon. He would not be welcome and she thought he would be in danger.
124.  	A second letter from [Ms H] was presented on review. I consider both her letters below. 
2016 Tribunal bridging visa decision 
125.  	The applicant submitted a copy of the 2016 Tribunal BV Decision and requested that the decision be considered and particularly paragraphs 24 and 25 regarding his serious concerns about his safety in Lebanon. Those paragraphs read as follows. 
24. The applicant said that the publicity surrounding his trial, including on the internet and social media, would also cause a problem for him if he returned because his community is tribal and people are saying he has raped people. He did not accept that the media would publicise his acquittal. He said that the media did not publicise his getting bail. No-one would speak with him or deal with him. I cannot predict the outcome of the criminal trial. If he is found not guilty, I do not accept that he will be isolated by the community or killed as he claimed at one point during the hearing. If he is found guilty, I cannot predict the sentence he may receive or how long it would be before he would have to return to Lebanon.
25. I take into account that his mother [and siblings] live in Lebanon and that his mother has come to Australia to support him during his criminal trial. He lived with his mother before coming to Australia. He owns his business premises in Australia which he could sell if he returned to Lebanon.
126.  	The 2016 Tribunal BV Decision related to the cancellation of a bridging visa the applicant held at the time. Thus, I do not regard the ‘whole decision’ relevant to this review. While I note that the paragraphs indicate that the applicant expressed concern during that review that he feared he would be isolated by his community or killed in Lebanon because they had found out about his charges via social media, the member did not accept he would be isolated or killed if he was found not guilty and made no prediction about what would happen to the applicant if he was found guilty. Hence, I give the decision and paragraphs 24 and 25 no weight.  
Request to issue summons
127.  	Prior to the Tribunal hearing the applicant requested that a summons be issued to the [State 1] Department of Communities and Justice to produce recordings, if they existed, of telephone calls between the applicant and his brother that were made over 5 days in late August and early September 2019 while the applicant was in prison. I decided to consider issuing such a summons after I conducted the hearing and had the opportunity to take evidence from the applicant and his brother. 
128.  	At the hearing I asked the applicant what the recordings would reveal which had not been revealed in the letter his brother provided shortly before the hearing (detailed below) or which he and his brother could not convey in their oral evidence at the hearing. The applicant replied that he had called his brother because he wanted to return to Lebanon but his brother advised him not to return. He said his brother told him that he only thought about himself and it would cause problems if he returned. The applicant said on one occasion he asked about the progress of his case and whether anyone has been arrested. 
129.  	After taking oral evidence from the applicant and his brother at the hearing I decided not to issue the summons requested by the applicant. Even if the recordings exist and show that the applicant and his brother had the conversations the applicant alleges they would not overcome my concerns about the credibility of the applicant and his brother, the reliability of their evidence, and whether the threats made in Lebanon were genuine threats.  
Documentary evidence submitted to the Tribunal before the hearing 
130.  	On 5 and 18 February 2020 the applicant’s migration agent submitted the following documents which she said would be relied upon at the hearing. To avoid confusion I have used the names the migration agent gave to the documents as headings below. The documents referred to as letters were all addressed ‘To whom it may concern’. 
  ‘Letter from [Mr B]’ 
131.  	This is a letter signed on 29 January 2020 by the applicant’s brother (Brother’s Letter). 
132.  	The applicant’s brother stated that ‘we’ (he did not specify who) avoided [Village 1] except in compelling circumstances due to the ‘looks of distain, dismay and whisper’. He said they had been receiving ‘direct and indirect threats’ against the applicant because he was viewed as having violated common morals and a bad upbringing.
133.  	He then stated that a number of times in 2016 unknown people had inquired about the applicant’s whereabouts via the intercom at his home but it was only after he received a hysterical intercom call during which an unknown person made profane remarks and threatened the applicant that he decided he had no option but to inform [Mr D]. The applicant’s brother stated that [Mr D] lodged a complaint with the appeal prosecutor in [Lebanon] in September 2016 but as yet there had been no answer. The applicant’s brother did not indicate that he had approached the police about the calls and that the police had refused to assist him. 
134.  	The applicant’s brother outlined a call he received from his sister, [Ms C], [in] June 2017 regarding a break-in at the family home in [Village 1] during which a threatening note was left. He stated that she made a report to the police who conducted an investigation but closed the report [in] June 2017 and submitted it to the ‘Public prosecution of the North’ without any result so far. 
135.  	He said that as a result of the revolution he was forced to go to the family home in [Village 1] [in] October 2019. The applicant’s brother stated that upon arriving, he found an envelope on the door stamped ‘Pig [the applicant]’ which contained a disc of an unknown masked person who threatened to kill the applicant. 
136.  	The applicant’s brother detailed the impact the ‘accusations’ against the applicant had caused ‘us’. He said he was concerned that if the threats were carried out they would be classified as honour crimes and thus punishment would be avoided which would force the clan into revenge and counter revenge. 
137.  	He indicated that the applicant had brought shame to the family, the applicant’s nieces were ashamed of him and preferred not to see or mix with him. The applicant’s brother said his wife refused to have the applicant live in their house or be close to their children. He said he felt morally conflicted due to his blood relationship with the applicant and the fear and justified concerns of his wife. 
138.  	Having had the opportunity to take oral evidence from the applicant’s brother I have not found him a credible witness and do not regard the information in the letter about the threats to be reliable. I give my reasons below. 
‘Mother’s statement’ 
139.  	This document is a ‘statutory declaration’ signed by the applicant’s mother on 31 January 2020 which was not declared before an authorised witness (Mother’s Statement). The applicant had initially informed the Tribunal that his mother would give oral evidence at the hearing but subsequently advised she was unable to do so.
140.  	According to the statement: 
a.	The applicant’s mother returned to Lebanon for five to six weeks in the summer of 2019. She travelled to and from [Village 1] and [Suburb] in Beirut where her son [Mr B] lived. 
b.	Arriving in [Village 1] she was shocked to find that a lot of people in the neighbourhood began avoiding them, swearing at them and some even made threats. 
c.	In [Village 1] and [Suburb], people’s facial expressions turned to disgust as soon as she stepped outside. 
d.	In [Suburb], she heard bad things about the applicant and her family from the community. 
e.	She and her family were looked at with hate and disgust in [Village 1] and the entire time she was there she did not leave her home because she was afraid of what people might do. 
f.	Her neighbours said bad things about the applicant, his siblings and her.
g.	Her neighbours constantly threatened that if the applicant returned he would not be present for long and in the streets of [Village 1] people always stopped to yell at her about the applicant and said things such as ‘If he comes back, we will hurt him’. 
h.	The people in the village kept repeating their threats day after day. 
i.	The entire village of [Village 1] had built a bad idea of the applicant and begun treating all of them disrespectfully. 
j.	A letter was left on the door of their house.
k.	There were secret messages and secret phone calls warning the family about what would happen if the applicant returned. 
l.	There were people always watching their home, monitoring their movements and some even found their phone lines and started making very disturbing calls. 
m.	The people in the village are very violent against criminals and send out spies to collect information. That is why the applicant would be found if he returned to Lebanon and would not be safe anywhere in Lebanon.  
n.	When the villagers lose their respect for you, they turn against you, become very rude, hostile and violent.
o.	The whole [Village 1] community is aware of the charges against the applicant which are posted all over the social media and available to Lebanese citizens. People from the village will go after the applicant and her family if he returns because they believe his actions have shamed the entire town of [Village 1]. 
p.	The applicant would be tracked down by spies and kidnapped once he steps foot onto Beirut airport. 
141.  	Various matters raise concern about the reliability of the information in this statement.  
142.  	Firstly, it is written in English and it not a translation yet the applicant stated at the hearing that his mother does not speak English. He stated that the statement was written by his sister, [Ms A]. However, for reasons I give below I do not regard [Ms A] as a reliable transcriber. 
143.  	Secondly, the statement is vague and lacks detail in a number of respects. For example, it does not identify with any specificity the persons who allegedly made the threats to the applicant’s mother even though they were allegedly made in person and the statement indicates they were made by people who would be known to her – her neighbour and people in her village. There are no details about the nature of the ‘secret messages’ and ‘secret phone calls’ that were allegedly made. 
144.  	Thirdly, the extent of the alleged threats seem exaggerated. According to the statement the threats were constant, occurred ‘always’, and ‘day after day’. However, the other evidence presented by the applicant up to that time indicated that there had been two specific threats made against him in Lebanon by the time his mother returned – in 2016 and in 2017, and no suggestion that constant, daily threats were made against the applicant’s siblings living in [Village 1] or Beirut. It does not appear credible that there would be such a sudden and dramatic escalation in threats for the five to six week period that the applicant’s mother returned to Lebanon. Further, as I detail below, I did not find the evidence the applicant’s brother gave at the hearing when asked about any threats and problems his mother experienced on her return credible. 
145.  	In light of these concerns, I have given the Mother’s Statement no weight. 
 ‘[Ms H] Letter’
146.  	This letter, dated 28 January 2020, is another letter from [Ms H]. 
147.  	In this letter [Ms H] stated that she visited Lebanon in 2005, 2008, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. She then described what occurred when she visited [Village 1] on her recent trip. I presume that meant her trip in 2019. However, the description she gave was virtually identical to the description she had given of her 2016 trip to Lebanon in her earlier letter. Further, while [Ms H]’s letter indicates that people in [Village 1] had formed an adverse opinion of the applicant, believed he has brought shame on the town, and would not welcome him back she does not explain why she believed such views and attitudes would translate into ‘danger’ for the applicant or what kind of danger. I thus do not regard [Ms H]’s evidence as reliable and have given her letters no weight. 
‘Letter from [Mr I]’
148.  	This is a letter dated 15 January 2020 from [Mr I] who refers to himself as ‘[a particular occupation] from [Town 1] District and [an official] with Lebanese Forces’. 
149.  	In the letter [Mr I] advises the applicant not to return to Lebanon due to the ‘atrocious living conditions’ which he indicates is largely the result of the deteriorating security situation caused by the massive popular revolution in Lebanon. [Mr I] states that the applicant’s criminal convictions may cause him physical harm and the ability to protect him in these difficult circumstances is not guaranteed. 
150.  	At the hearing the applicant stated clearly and unequivocally that his claim for protection was not based on a fear of returning to Lebanon due to the security situation per se but that his concern about the security situation which had developed in Lebanon was that it meant that neither the Lebanon authorities nor the Lebanese Forces, which he referred to as ‘our party’, would be able to protect him from the harm he would face from the unknown persons who have threatened to kill him. 
151.  	The letter does not indicate that [Mr I] is aware of the nature of the crimes that the applicant committed in Australia, what physical harm the applicant may face due to those crimes, who would harm the applicant or why. Thus, it is not apparent that [Mr I] had a sound basis on which to assert that the applicant would not be afforded protection from the harm he would face due to his crimes. Further, at the hearing the applicant stated that his brother had approached [Mr I] for assistance and hence procured the letter from [Mr I]. It thus appears that [Mr I]’s letter is based on information conveyed to him by the applicant’s brother rather firsthand knowledge about the applicant’s crimes and circumstances. Hence, [Mr I]’s letter is little more than a letter of support written on the basis of information given to him by the applicant’s brother, who I indicate below I did not find credible. I have thus given [Mr I]’s letter no weight. 
‘Letter from [Mr J] – Council Officer’ 
152.  	This letter signed [in] January 2020 is from [Mr J] who states he is a representative of the [Clan name] clan ‘as per customs and traditions of the Municipality of Council of [Village 1]’. 
153.  	[Mr J] states that the applicant belongs to the [Clan name] clan which is well known in the area for its good conduct and reputation. He then states,
… what is attributed to [the applicant] in Australia is talked about between people who are hailed from our region which is upsetting us as it is considered as a stigma for the family and its history. The accusations which are related to honour crimes have a negative impact on the clan’s social relationships in the region as this type of accusations is considered taboo against our social customs and traditions which arrange the relationships of the clans among each other. 
After discussing the matter with the elders of the clan the following has been decided: “[The applicant] is not welcomed among the members of the clan as he has violated the ethics and customs by committing honour crimes and causing bad relationships between our clan and out neighbours in the region which may cause uncalculated reaction that might end in bloodshed and the clan is not capable of protecting him”. 
154.  	Several aspects of the letter are unclear and of concern. 
155.  	Firstly, [Mr J] appears to characterise the crimes the applicant has committed in Australia as honour crimes. However, the information in sources I have consulted do not indicate that the applicant’s crimes would be regarded as honour crimes in Lebanon as there is no suggestion that the applicant committed his crimes in the name of honour or to re-establish anyone’s honour.  
156.  	Secondly, [Mr J] seems to indicate that the applicant’s return could incite inter-clan violence. There is no evidence of that occurring in the sources I have consulted but in any event [Mr J] does not explain why other clans would react with violence to the applicant bringing shame and disrepute to his own well-regarded clan. It seems that if the applicant has shamed his own clan through his crimes, it would be more likely that his own clan would harm him for the shame he has brought upon his clan.  
157.  	Thirdly, the applicant himself had not raised the possibility of inter-clan violence but his brother stated in his letter of [January] 2020 that the applicant’s crimes could result in inter-clan violence. The applicant stated at the hearing that [Mr J] provided his letter after being approached for assistance by the applicant’s brother. Thus, the suggestion of inter-clan violence for the first time on review in [Mr J]’s letter and the applicant’s brother letter raises doubts about the reliability of that information. 
158.  	Fourthly, the letter is vague about what protection the clan could provide its members, in what circumstances and why clan members would look to their clan rather than the Lebanese authorities to provide protection. 
159.  	In light of the above issues, I do not regard the contents of the letter as reliable and I have given it no weight. 
‘Lawyer Letter Part Four’ 
160.  	This is a letter from [Mr D] dated 3 February 2020 ([Mr D]’s Second Letter). 
161.  	[Mr D] begins by stating that the applicant’s house had been attacked and death threats left against the applicant more than once. He then goes on to explain in general and not very clear terms why the applicant would be harmed if he returned to Lebanon:
..Lebanese society in general especially in rural areas is a tribal community, and harm to any member of the family or clan impacts the whole clan and the punishment would usually be by any member of the clan taking revenge to protect his right and honour against the guilty person by targeting his property or life. 
My client is considered in the eyes of the clans of the towns is out of its values and traditions and because he was accused in Australia of crimes of violating public morals and is considered a social risk for their daughters and wives in case he returns to Lebanon.
The clans have a strict code of rules which states that there is no escape from revenge for anybody who harms their son and daughters. This is the case of my client.. which is accused of violating the honour of the whole clan as a result of the incidents which happened to him in Australia. His clan considers him as brought shame on it because he violated the values and traditions which is based on morals and respects especially for girls and ladies. 
162.  	The above paragraphs seem to indicate that the applicant would be harmed by clans – his own clan and other clans including the clans to which the victims of his crimes belong to. [Mr D] suggests that the applicant’s own clan will harm him because of the shame he has brought on the clan by his crimes, the victims’ clans will harm the applicant in revenge, and other clans will harm the applicant to protect their ‘daughters and wives’. However, [Mr J], the head of the applicant’s clan, did not indicate that the applicant’s clan would harm the applicant but that it could not protect him. Further, at the hearing I specifically asked the applicant to clarify whether he feared he would be harmed by his clan. He stated with certainty that he did not and that his concern with regard to his clan was that it would unable to protect him. The fact that [Mr D] appeared to claim that the applicant would face harm from his own clan when neither the applicant nor the leader of the applicant’s clan made such a claim, raises doubts about the reliability of [Mr D]’s evidence and indeed his credibility. 
163.  	[Mr D] concludes by stating that there have been many cases of revenge in Lebanon against men who have sexually assaulted girls and women and that he considered the applicant’s life in real and permanent danger. However, [Mr D] did not provide details of any of those cases and at the hearing he referred to just two such alleged cases. In light of these concerns and other concerns about other aspects of [Mr D]’s evidence that I outline below, I give [Mr D]’s Second Letter no weight. 
‘Lawyer Letter Part Three’
164.  	This is a further copy of the Record of Evidence Report. 
‘Lawyer Letter Part Two’
165.  	This is a further copy of [Mr D]’s First Letter of 20 June 2018. 
‘Lawyer Letter Part One’
166.  	This is a further copy of the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint. 
 ‘Photos of [the applicant]’s house in Lebanon’
167.  	These were said to be photographs of the front door of the applicant’s home in [Village 1]. The door is metal and glass. The photographs show an envelope placed between the metal bars and the glass of the door. The applicant’s brother has claimed that he found the envelope on the door [in] October 2019 when he went to [Village 1] and that the envelope contained the recording of the Masked Man Video. 
168.  	At the hearing the applicant said it was evident from the photographs that there were two different types of glass which showed that repairs had been made to the door after the 2017 break-in. I cannot detect a difference in the glass but even if there is, that is not evidence of how the glass came to be broken or by whom. I thus give the photographs no weight.
‘Summary of videos’
169.  	According to this document the following is a summary of the videos on the USB that was presented at the hearing.
a.	Video recorded [in] September 2019 of masked man threatening the applicant which was on the CD found by the applicant’s brother [in] October 2019 when he visited the applicant’s [Village 1] home. This is the Masked Man Video I have referred to above.  
b.	A video said to be of a speech delivered by Samir Geagea on 21 September 2019. This is the Samir Geagea Video I have referred to above. 
c.	A video relating to the death of a captain in the storming of a police station in Lebanon on 12 February 2020 (Captain Video).
d.	A 16 February 2020 video said to be of a group of men referred to as ‘mafia’ shooting bullets in the applicant’s area of [Valley]  ([Valley] Shots Video). The migration agent claimed there was no government and no laws in place to protect citizens from those kinds of incidents and the situation in Lebanon is expected to get worse. 
‘Video masked man translation’ 
170.  	This document is a translation from Arabic into English of the threat made by the masked man in the Masked Man Video. According to the translation the masked man said: 
On [date]/9/2019, [the applicant], your civil record number is [deleted], [name] district and you are from [Village 1].
We are awaiting these issues, the honour issues, to us honour is before everything else and we never forget. 
You are a man who’s blood is wasted in Lebanon and all across Lebanon, as soon as you step at the airport we will know about you my dear, be very careful we have people with us at the airport who will get all the news.
We are sending you this message so you don’t regret ever coming to Lebanon, slaughter from vein to vein (from side to side/of the throat), slaughter be very careful. 
171.  	For reasons I give below I have concluded that the threat made in the video by the masked man was not a genuine threat and that the video was contrived to support the applicant’s claims.   
‘Video Samir Geagea translation’
172.  	This is a translation from Arabic to English of the speech made by Mr Geagea on 21 September 2019 in the Samir Geagea Video. 
173.  	In the speech Mr Geagea criticises the security forces in Lebanon for allegedly informing the family of a man who had been kidnapped to negotiate with the kidnappers rather than attempting to rescue the man. 
174.  	There is nothing in the speech to suggest that the alleged kidnapping was an honour-based crime or that the man was kidnapped because he had committed sexual violence or any crime for that matter. At the hearing the applicant claimed that the kidnapping indicated that the security forces in Lebanon would not protect him. For reasons I give below I have concluded that the applicant will not face serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Lebanon and hence he will not require protection from the security forces or anyone else. I thus give the video no weight. 
 ‘Death of captain in Beirut’
175.  	This document is a translation from Arabic into English of a news report regarding the killing of a police captain. According to the translation the captain was killed in a police station and was the son of a high-ranking member of the Intelligence. 
176.  	At the hearing the applicant claimed that if a police captain who is the son of a high-ranking member of Intelligence can be killed in a police station then, as an ordinary civilian, he faced an even greater risk of being killed. There is nothing to suggest that the killing was connected in any way to anyone who had committed sexual violence or to an honour crime. I have thus given the video and the article about the killing of the police captain no weight. 
‘Lebanon Article’
177.  	This is an undated article about [certain] regions around the world which refers to the [valley] region as a Hezbollah-controlled area close to Syria which faces security issues. 
178.  	According to the evidence the applicant gave the delegate and at the hearing, [Village 1] is a mostly [Christian] village of about [Number] people located in the [Town 1] district of the governate of North Lebanon. The evidence the applicant gave at the hearing indicates [Village 1] is not in the [valley] but he suggested there was a close connection between [Village 1] and the [valley] because the clans of [Village 1] extended beyond [Village 1] and the mountains to the [valley].  Maps in the DFAT Lebanon Report and the Smart Traveller Advice, which the migration agent also submitted, indicate that the [Town 1] district and [valley] are in the north of Lebanon but that [Town 1] district is not in the [valley] but is located to the east of the [valley]. 
179.  	In any case, the evidence about the [valley] which includes this [article] and the [Valley] Shots Video appears to have been presented to indicate that the applicant faced a heightened risk of being killed if he returned to Lebanon because of the violence, Hezbollah presence and security issues in the [valley]. However, the applicant’s own evidence is that his village is a predominantly Christian village and has not claimed that Hezbollah has any presence there.  He has not claimed that security issues in the [valley] due to its close proximity to the Syrian border have affected his village or that the shots fired in the air in the [valley] had any connection to crimes of sexual violence or an honour crime. He has not claimed that he will or would want to travel to or live in the [valley]. Thus, I give the evidence about the [valley] including the video and article no weight. 
‘Online articles [the applicant]’ 
180.  	This document consists of an Australian newspaper article published [in] May 2013 under the headline ‘[deleted]’ and a comment made on [Website] [in] May 2013 which reads ‘[deleted]’ and includes a link to the article. The article reported that the applicant had been charged with sexually and indecently assaulting four of his clients over a three month period. 
181.  	The comment is a warning to other clients about the applicant. It is not a threat against the applicant. There is nothing to connect the article to the threats which were made in Lebanon several years later or to suggest that the applicant will be harmed in Lebanon. I have thus given it no weight. 
 ‘Comments of [the applicant’s] Conviction’ 
182.  	Rather than being comments on the applicant’s convictions, this document appears to consist of images of the [Social media account name] and previously provided social media comments made by [Ms G].  
183.  	The only new information in the document are two additional comments on the [Social media account name] and evidence that the account was reported for harassment in August 2014. The comments are ‘[deleted]’ and ‘[deleted]!!’. There are no further photos and the second comment, like the earlier post mentioned above, appears to mock sexual violence. There is no evidence of any further activity on the account. Although the account name includes the name of the applicant’s village, there is nothing to suggest that the person or persons who created the account or made the posts are connected to the threats made years later in Lebanon. The name merely indicates that people were aware that the applicant was from [Village 1]. I have given the [Social media account name] and the posts no weight. 
Articles 1 to 6 
184.  	These six documents consist of online articles which appear to relate to the deaths of three men and a man who was allegedly injured by gunshot fired by security forces while he was participating in a protest in Beirut. Two of the deceased men were reportedly found dead in [Village 1] in suspicious circumstances, one with a gunshot wound to the head. The third deceased man was reportedly born in [Village 1] and found dead in another location with a gunshot wound. 
185.  	There is nothing in the articles to suggest that the men had committed sexual violence against women or were victims of an honour crime. The mere fact that the men were from [Village 1], were found dead in [Village 1], died or were injured by gunshots, were allegedly killed in suspicious circumstances or killed by unidentified persons does not indicate that the threats made against the applicant in [Village 1] were genuine or that he will be killed or shot in an honour crime because of the crimes he has committed in Australia. In fact I note that the only threat made against the applicant which specifies how he would be harmed, the Masked Man Video, indicates that his throat will be slit not that he will be shot. Further, there is nothing in the articles to suggest that the men were killed by any of the people or groups the applicant has claimed may kill him. I thus give the articles no weight. 
 ‘Bridging Visa Decision Record’
186.  	This document is a copy of the 2019 Tribunal BV Decision. A sentence in paragraph 24 is highlighted which reads ‘Some of those documents relate to circumstances in Lebanon and [the applicant]’s safety there as well as his protection claims’. The applicant has had the opportunity to present documents in support of his claims for protection and done so. I have given no weight to the fact he also provided documents about his claimed fears about returning to Lebanon in a review relating to the bridging visa refusal. 
‘2020 Smart Traveller Lebanon’
187.  	The document is a travel advice issued by DFAT to Australians travelling to Lebanon. Parts of the report were highlighted. At the hearing the applicant appeared to rely on this report to indicate that the security situation in Lebanon and his region was such that the authorities would be unable to provide him with protection. The applicant stated at the hearing that he did not fear harm due to the security situation but that he would not be afforded protection because of the security situation. As I find that the applicant will not be subjected to the serious harm or significant harm he will not require protection. I thus give the advice no weight.  
 ‘DFAT 2019’ 
188.  	The document is a copy of the DFAT Lebanon Report with certain parts highlighted. Some of the highlighted parts do not relate to claims made by the applicant. I have had regard to the report insofar as it is relevant to the applicant’s claims. However, the relevant information in the report does not lead me to accept that the threats made against the applicant in Lebanon were genuine threats or that he faces a real chance of being subjected to serious harm or significant harm in Lebanon because of the crimes he has committed in Australia. 
Evidence given at hearing 
189.  	At the hearing I took evidence from the applicant first, followed by his brother, then [Mr D] and the applicant again. The applicant was present when his brother and [Mr D] gave their evidence. Before taking evidence from the applicant’s brother, the applicant drew my attention to the position his brother held according the Brother’s Letter, namely, an inspector at the National Security Fund which the applicant said was like a superannuation fund. [Mr D] stated that he had been practising law for [a number of] years.
190.  	Each of the them gave evidence in a confident manner and their ability to give evidence did not seem impaired in any way. However, the following concerns lead me to conclude that they were not credible witnesses and that their evidence was not reliable. 
Brother’s evidence 
191.  	Noting that according to his recent letter people came to his address in 2016 asking about the applicant’s whereabouts via the intercom, I asked the applicant’s brother to estimate how many people came asking about the applicant. The applicant’s brother did not provide an estimation instead he said exactly what he had said in his letter, that it happened many times. The applicant’s brother then proceeded to state in what seemed a rote-like manner that initially people just asked about the applicant and then went way. He said it was not serious until the occasion when a caller became hysterical, name called and used hard words to make a direct threat. Rather than provide an approximate figure for the number of non-threatening intercom calls he had received, the applicant’s brother repeated information he had already provided in his letter.  It appeared he was being intentionally evasive about how many intercom calls he had received and the account of events he gave seemed rehearsed. 
192.  	Although the applicant had told the delegate that his brother had repeatedly gone to the police about the intercom calls but was sent away, there was no indication of that in the Brother’s Letter. In an attempt to clarify the matter I asked the applicant’s brother whether he had reported the intercom calls about his brother to the police. The applicant’s brother did not answer that straightforward question. Instead he said he had reviewed all the incidents, drew a link between them and formed the view that it was monitoring and spying so he had to take it seriously and lodged a lawsuit. He stated that the case was with the public prosecutor of [Lebanon] and was being investigated but to date there had been no outcome. This account also seemed rehearsed. I noted that he had already mentioned the lawsuit in his letter and asked again whether he had gone to the police. That time the applicant’s brother indicated that he had not and then explained why. He said such matters could not be taken to the police because there was no person that could be identified as the subject of the complaint so the matter had to be taken to court for an investigation to be undertaken. That however seems inconsistent with the Record of Evidence Report which shows that his sister reported the threatening note she allegedly found in the applicant’s home in [Village 1] to the police even though she said she did not know the person responsible for the note. Later in the hearing the applicant’s brother also mentioned going to the police about the break-in which suggests he was aware it was possible to report matters to the police even though the perpetrator of an offence was unknown. It seemed that the applicant’s brother initially sought to avoid answering the question about whether he reported the intercom calls to the police and then invented an explanation to justify why he had not done so. 
193.  	Asked whether he reported the Masked Man Video to the police or public prosecutor, the applicant’s brother did not immediately give a direct and explicit answer to that simple question. Instead he gave a long, convoluted and vague reply which ultimately indicated that he had not. He began by referring to what he said was the unstable situation with friends and people of the village. He said there was uncertainty and gossip which affected and disturbed them. He did not specify who was subjected to the gossip and given he lived in Beirut and not the applicant’s village it is unclear who he was referring to. He said he had to distance himself because of the despising manner in which they were looked upon. I interjected to direct the applicant’s brother back to my question. He said he was going to answer the question. He continued that 2019 was not the first incident. He said there were many incidents and then listed just the three threats that he had already outlined in his letter. He referred to the break-in which he said he took to the police and court in North Lebanon. He said they investigated but nothing had come out. He said he had no confidence in anything, in the whole system. He referred to what he said happened in Lebanon on 17 October and said there was no control or stability in Lebanon so he thought he better not tackle the issue because no protection could be provided. When I sought to clarify whether his evidence was that he had not reported the Masked Man Video because he did not believe he would get a positive outcome, the applicant’s brother agreed that was the case and added that it was also because there had been two lawsuits which were still current and without an outcome when the country was normal. He said what happened on October 17 was anarchy, there was a culture of impunity, he did not want to endanger his family, he repeated it was all anarchy and chaos. He said ‘the person’ could reach his home and easily commit a crime. He indicated he could say more about the subject. Given the question I had asked was whether he had reported the Masked Man Video to the authorities, I told the applicants brother that it seemed he had answered the question I had asked. However, the applicant’s brother continued. He said that the situation in North Lebanon and Tripoli was extremely volatile, chaotic and insecure. The applicant’s brother had already detailed the decline in the security situation caused after the revolution at the hearing and had referred to the security situation in his letter. It seemed that rather than respond in a direct manner to whether he had made a report to the authorities about the video the applicant’s brother was determined to repeat information he had already provided and emphasize the security situation. The impression this left was that his intention was to give a formulated response rather than provide the information requested.  
194.  	I noted that his mother had returned to Lebanon in 2019 and asked whether he had witnessed his mother receive any threats or experience any problems due to the applicant’s crimes in Australia. His response was unclear, vague and meandering. The applicant’s brother began by mentioning that his mother was sick and elderly which did not seem directly relevant to what I had asked. He then told me what happened ‘in the beginning’ to ‘us’. He said people in the village boycotted them, viewed them in a demeaning and despising way. He said there was a lot of gossip, they felt insecure and unstable and people kept their distance from them. He did not specify when ‘the beginning’ was or who he meant by ‘us’. The reference to the village indicated he was describing what had occurred in [Village 1] but he lived in Beirut. Only after giving that evidence did the applicant’s brother specifically refer to his mother. He said that when his mother came back, she did not stay in [Village 1] and he did not put her in the picture due to her medical condition. That suggested that his mother was not exposed to the treatment he had just described in [Village 1]. But then the applicant’s brother said that when his mother came to know what was happening in [Village 1] she was compelled to move to Beirut with him. That suggested that although he had tried to conceal what had was happening in [Village 1] from his mother she nevertheless somehow came to know what was occurring and thus stayed with him in Beirut.  The applicant’s brother then returned to events which occurred before his mother’s return in 2019. He referred to ‘the first incident’ which he said was when the house was broken into and said the security forces came to the village to inspect the scene of the crime. I understood him to be referring to the 2017 break-in. He said that all the houses in the village are close by and everyone knows each other so from then on they asked ‘what happened?’, ‘what have you done?’, ‘what occurred?’. He did not specify who asked those questions nor is there anything prima facie threatening or problematic about such questions. Nor is it clear why people in the village would keep asking about the break-in years after it occurred. The applicant’s brother then referred again to his mother’s return in 2019. He said that ever since she came to Lebanon, ‘they’ asked her ‘what happened?’, said ‘he shouldn’t return’ and ‘he should not put himself at risk and put us in danger’. The applicant’s brother did not specify who asked that question or made those statements to his mother nor was it apparent from his preceding evidence given he had indicated that his mother stayed with him in Beirut. He added that there was an atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion in the village. He referred again to his mother being unwell and said she was only given some insights about what was occurring, and finally that she was [age] years old. Asked who said those things to his mother, the applicant’s brother replied they were her friends and neighbors and added that the village is narrow and limited. 
195.  	Having initially indicated that his mother did not return to [Village 1] the applicant’s brother eventually seemed to suggest that she was there at least for some period of time. After initially stating that he concealed what was happening in [Village 1] from his mother the applicant’s brother eventually seemed to indicate that he did reveal some of what was happening there. Having initially indicated that his mother was not subjected to any threats or problems because she stayed with him in Beirut he eventually indicated that her friends and neighbors questioned her about the applicant and told her he would put himself and them at risk if he returned. If the applicant’s brother had witnessed his mother’s friends and neighbors making such remarks to his mother in [Village 1] then I expect he would have been able to convey that in a more clear and direct manner. Instead it appeared that the imprecise, long and convoluted account he gave was not one based on events he had witnessed or experienced but was being invented as he gave his evidence. 
[Mr D]’s evidence
196.  	Noting he had referred to violations of honour in his most recent letter and that honour crimes were referred to in letters the applicant had submitted from others, I asked [Mr D] what the legal position was in Lebanon with regard to honour crimes. He replied that if an honour crime is committed in Lebanon ‘he’ will not be dealt with with impunity but will receive mitigation. His reply indicated that an honour crime is unlawful but that the perpetrator of an honour crime would receive a reduced punishment. I put to [Mr D] that according to information I had the article in the penal code which had allowed mitigation for honour crimes had been repealed. [Mr D] responded that it still existed in Lebanon and that encouraged ‘them’ to commit crime. After the hearing a letter was presented from [Mr D] in which he sought to explain the response he gave at the hearing. I give my reasons for not accepting the explanation below and why that undermines his credibility. 
197.  	I noted that in his most recent letter, he said that here had been many cases in Lebanon of revenge against men who have sexually assaulted women and girls. I put to [Mr D] that I had consulted a number of sources and not found evidence of that. I put to [Mr D] that the information in the sources I had consulted indicated that rather than male perpetrators being targeted, female victims of sexual violence and sexual harassment were blamed and faced shame. [Mr D] said that was not true at all in Lebanon. He said Lebanon consisted of different societies – the rural and civic. He said a man was recently killed on an electrical pole in the village of Kafar Maya because he had an illegitimate sexual relationship with a girl and in Tripoli, in a village near [Village 1], a man was subjected to harsh assault because he was accused of sexual misconduct with a girl in the city. I do not find [Mr D]’s assertion that here are ‘many’ cases in Lebanon of revenge against men who have sexually assaulted women and girls credible in light of the information in the sources I have consulted which indicates that female victims of sexual violence in Lebanon face shame and blame for sexual violence. Further, in the absence of credible independent evidence about the details of the specific incidents he referred to at the hearing such the age of the ‘girls’, the nature of the ‘illegitimate relationship’ and ‘sexual misconduct’ involved, who allegedly killed and assaulted the men, how the ‘girls’ themselves were treated, and any response by the authorities I do not accept his assertion that a man was killed and another man assaulted for alleged sexual conduct or sexual violence against girls. I note below that after the hearing the applicant provided a news report of a man who was killed in Lebanon apparently in connection with the rape of a woman. However, I have found no other reports of any other such cases and do not regard one case as indicative of there being ‘many’ such cases as [Mr D]’s asserted. It appeared that [Mr D] overstated the treatment of male sexual offenders to strengthen the applicant’s claims. 
198.  	I noted that it had been claimed the applicant would be harmed if he returned to Lebanon because of the crimes he has been convicted of in Australia, that it had been suggested that the inquiries and threat the applicant’s brother had received via his intercom were related to the crimes the applicant had committed in Australia, and that it had also been suggested that there would be consequences for the applicant’s clan and other clans if the applicant returned to Lebanon. [Mr D] agreed. I asked why then there was no mention of those matters in the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint which he had lodged on the applicant’s behalf given they seemed relevant to an investigation into the intercom calls and threat. [Mr D]’s response did not address the question asked. He said there were two ‘files’. He said the first file related to the threats received by the applicant’s brother by intercom in August 2016. He said the second crime was the break and enter at the applicant’s house [in] June 2017 when a threatening note was left. He said the last crime occurred [in] October 2019 at the applicant’s house. [Mr D] said the security forces were still investigating but investigation in Lebanon is very primitive, there was no fingerprinting, and no proper forensic procedures. He said it was difficult to identify what occurred or the perpetrator.  He indicated that ascertaining the identity was a very difficult process because there were many clans in [Village 1] and the person who made the threat could not be identified. [Mr D]’s response indicated why the authorities may have been unable to identify who made the intercom calls but did not explain why there was no mention of the matters I had referred to in the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint. I expect that as the lawyer who had lodged the complaint on the applicant’s behalf he would have been able to provide a clear and direct response to my question. It seemed he was being intentionally evasive. 
199.  	When I stressed to [Mr D] that I was asking why the matters were not mentioned in the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint, he responded that it was not right that the matters had not been mentioned. He said the complaint clearly stated that a threat to kill had been made, it was stated that even the blue flies would not know the applicant’s whereabouts if he returned to Lebanon which meant the applicant would be killed. He said they had made a case to the prosecution by virtue of Article 574 which relates to execution. However, I had not suggested that the threat made against the applicant was not mentioned in the complaint. Again he did not explain why the matters I had referred to were not in the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint. [Mr D] also said that as they were not sure who the perpetrator was any person mentioned could take legal action and sue for false allegations. I had not questioned why a particular person had not been identified as a perpetrator but why the matters I had referred to were not included in the complaint. It seems those matters were relevant to and would have assisted an investigation into the intercom calls and threat. Given the alleged object of making the complaint was to have the calls and threat investigated and the person/s responsible identified, I expect that those matters would have been included in the complaint. Without credible explanation for not doing so it seems that relevant information which would have assisted the authorities was intentionally withheld from the complaint. [Mr D]’s response to this question seemed intentionally evasive. The applicant’s migration agent suggested that the translation of the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint which had been submitted had omitted a paragraph from the original document and undertook to provide another translation. However, as I note below, the new translation was no different in any material respect to the previous one. 
200.  	Asked if he had any further evidence, [Mr D] said that the risk faced by the applicant was exacerbated by the current situation in Lebanon. Like the applicant and the applicant’s brother, [Mr D] seemed to place great emphasis on the impact of the revolution on the security situation. [Mr D] then said that the ‘original harm’ stemmed from the applicant’s clan because he had breached traditional norms and his ex-wife’s family may have a hostile view which could put the applicant in more danger. [Mr D] said that the society and village the applicant came from was retarded and backward thinking, they did not abide by civil law and had their own tribal or clan system. However, before taking [Mr D]’s evidence I had asked the applicant whether he feared being harmed by his clan. The applicant replied, unequivocally, that he did not. I had asked the applicant who he feared would harm him if he returned to Lebanon, the applicant replied that they were unknown persons and made no mention of his ex-wife’s family. The fact [Mr D] suggested that the applicant faced harm from people the applicant himself had not claimed to fear undermines [Mr D]’s credibility and calls into question the reliability of his evidence.
201.  	[Mr D] continued that the Lebanese government was absent and not operating and nor was the legal system which increased the crime rate and made Lebanon one of the most insecure places to be in, and that the proximity of [Village 1] to Tripoli and Islamic organisations such as ISIS put the applicant’s life in danger even more. [Mr D] gave no explanation for why being close to Islamic organisations would put the applicant at greater risk. Further, as I subsequently raised with the applicant, the information in sources I have consulted indicate that ISIS has not had a presence in Lebanon since 2017.  
202.  	[Mr D] concluded by referring to two crimes committed in [Village 1] in which the perpetrators had not been identified and named two men he said were from [Village 1] and were killed in [Village 1]. It seemed [Mr D] was referring to the deaths of two men reported in articles submitted prior to hearing. However, as I have stated above the reports do not indicate that the deaths were connected in any way to sexual violence committed by the men or honour crimes. The mere fact that two men from [Village 1] have been found dead in [Village 1] is not evidence that there is a real chance that the applicant will be killed in a [Village 1] due to his crimes. 
Applicant’s evidence 
203.  	The applicant was not a forthright witness. He often gave vague, implied or brief responses to questions before going on to speak at length about tangential or unrelated matters. That left the impression that the applicant was being intentionally evasive , was inventing evidence or presenting evidence that he had crafted beforehand. I outline these and other issues with that go his credibility below. 
204.  	The applicant began his evidence by stating that the security situation in Lebanon was very bad and that he had provided videos about the instability, volatility and shooting. He said the threats were ongoing and referred to the threat made in the Masked Man Video. He said he was will still fixated upon by unknown people. Asked what harm he believed he would face if he returned to Lebanon the applicant stated that the threat was to kidnap and kill him, he said the shedding of blood was lawfully permitted. This gave the impression that honour killings were not unlawful in Lebanon. This was something his brother had suggested in his letter as well. However, as I discuss below and as raised with the applicant later in the hearing, the information in sources I have consulted do not indicate that is the case. It thus seemed that the suggestion that his murder in an honour crime would be permitted was an attempt to overstate the risk he faced of being killed. 
205.  	The applicant added that the physical harm that would be caused was unknown. What he meant by that is unclear given he had just claimed that he would be killed. He then seemed to suggest he may be subject to psychological harm and said he could be deprived of visiting his father’s grave if he got a visa. Asked about the psychological harm the applicant replied that he was in constant fear. That indicates his current state of mind not that he would be subjected to psychological harm if he returned to Lebanon. The suggestion that he would be prevented from visiting his father’s grave if he got a visa was unclear. If the applicant genuinely believed he would be killed in an honour crime in Lebanon then it does not seem credible that he would return to Lebanon to see his father’s grave if he was granted a visa. The applicant added that his family would be affected too, as would his clan. However, he did not specify what harm his family or clan would face. Other than his immediate response that he would be kidnapped and killed his evidence was vague and unclear and it seemed he said whatever came to mind rather than express genuinely held fears about harm he would face. 
206.  	I noted that he had referred earlier to unknown people and asked the applicant who he believed would harm him. The applicant replied that he had always said they were unknown people and then spoke about other matters. He said the file was dormant, the file was closed, it was no longer active so no serious investigation had been carried out. He referred to his interview with the delegate and essentially repeated the account he had given the delegate of crimes he said he had been subjected to in Australia, being assaulted and the CCTV camera from his shop being stolen. He said he had a recording of the police telling him he could not make a statement about those crimes. Asked the relevance of those matters to who would harm him in Lebanon, the applicant gave a lengthy response about why he would not be protected in Lebanon. The applicant repeated what he had told the delegate about not being given protection in Australia and questioned how he could be protected in Lebanon when he was not even protected in Australia. The applicant did not however specify anyone he thought may harm him if he returned even though when he was questioned at some length by the delegate about who he thought may have made the threats in Lebanon he had made a number of suggestions. The applicant seemed to intentionally avoid suggesting who he believed may have threatened harm him and would harm him. 
207.  	The applicant claims his village became aware of his crimes when he was charged. The threatening note the applicant’s sister allegedly found at his house in 2017 and [Mr J]’s letter indicated that the crimes the applicant had committed in Australia breached tribal norms. The man in the Masked Mand Video indicated he would be killed for ‘honour issues’. That would suggest that it may be members of the applicant’s clan in [Village 1] who had threatened him and wanted to kill him. However as noted above when I raised the applicant whether he feared his clan he told me with certainty and without hesitation that he did not. Given this evidence it seems hard to believe the applicant could be so certain that his clan would not harm him. And yet, as indicated below, despite stating he had no evidence, he suggested that [Ms G] and the SNP, Hezbollah, ISIS and other Islamic groups may have been responsible for the threats and would harm him. 
208.  	I noted that the evidence and documents the applicant had presented indicated he had not personally received any threats from anyone in Lebanon and that the threats from Lebanon had been made through his family. I asked the applicant whether that was correct. The applicant acknowledged that was the case and then added that there had been a threat on social media when he was charged, he indicated the person who made the threat was Lebanese and connected to the SNP, which seemed a reference to the [Ms G] and her social media comment. However, the applicant then said that was why he didn’t know who, could not say who, could not accuse anyone. Again, it seemed that the applicant seemed reluctant to repeat the suggestions he had previously made about who he believed might have threatened him in Lebanon. 
209.  	I observed that it appeared that no member of the applicant’s family in Lebanon had been physically harmed because of him and asked the applicant whether that was correct. His reply implied that was correct. He said they were subjected to insults and gossip. He mentioned that his mother was insulted and seemed to suggest that as a result she suffered physical consequences. He did not identify any other family members who were insulted or subjected to gossip or provide any details about the nature of the insults or gossip his mother or any other family member was subjected to. Instead he proceeded to speak at length about a range of other matters. He indicated that certain members of his family including his brother’s wife wanted him to stay away from their children, and that his clan had convened but could not protect him so his brother went to talk to a member of parliament in their area. He said the politician could not provide protection either given the situation in Lebanon. He referred to his lawyer having a good position in Lebanon. He mentioned the Lebanese Forces and referred to the video of Samir Geagea giving a speech about the man who was kidnapped and whose family were told to negotiate with the kidnappers. He said it was not only his brother who was telling him not to return to Lebanon but others as well. He then referred to papers from the government which he said were certified and showed he was afraid. The applicant’s response appeared to be an intentional attempt to avoid providing any details about the harm he suggested his family had been subjected to. 
210.  	I questioned the applicant about the timing of the threats made against him in Lebanon. I noted that the 2016 intercom calls asking about his whereabouts and threatening him if he returned was made about 5 years after he had left Lebanon, over 2 years after he was charged and while he was in prison. In response the applicant referred to what he called the direct threat [Ms G] had made on social media but offered no explanation about why he believed the two were connected or the timing of a comment made in in 2013 and the intercom calls made in in 2016. Further, as noted above [Ms G]’s Comment did not contain an explicit threat and there is no evidence connecting [Ms G] to any threats made against the applicant in Lebanon. However, as the applicant himself stated later in the hearing he had no evidence that she or the SNP had made the threat in Lebanon. It seems hard to believe that the applicant would genuinely believe that [Ms G] was responsible for or connected to a threat made against him in Lebanon in 2016 based on the comment she had made three years before when he was charged. 
211.  	I noted to the applicant that he had suggested during his interview and [Mr D] had suggested in his evidence that he may be harmed by Hezbollah, the SNP, ISIS and Muslims. I put to the applicant that I had not found evidence in the sources I had consulted to indicate that they had or would target people who had committed crimes such as he had. I noted that according to information I had Hezbollah was a Shia party and movement and the SNP was a minor secular party that believed in a greater Syria. I asked the applicant why then Hezbollah or the SNP would target him, and why ISIS or Muslims would target him. The applicant replied that he did not accuse anyone. He said that when unknown people are against a person they put options. I accept that if a person receives threats from people who do not identify themselves they would hypothesize about who might have made the threats. However, the applicant’s suggestions are not based on reasonable inferences drawn from facts and evidence.  
212.  	He said Hezbollah was suggested because Hezbollah controls Lebanon but Hezbollah was not suggested in particular because he did not know. The applicant had specifically suggested at the interview that Hezbollah may threatened and seemed to be attempting to step back from the suggestion at the hearing. Further, even if Hezbollah controls Lebanon that does not explain why Hezbollah would have an adverse interest in the applicant for the crimes he committed in Australia. The suggestion that Hezbollah would want to harm the applicant and could have been responsible for the threats is far-fetched. 
213.  	In relation to the SNP the applicant said that Syria had ruled Lebanon for over 30 years and then referred in a disjointed manner to various matters which seemed unconnected to his circumstances. For example, he referred to needing to get permission to get employment in the army or in security and henchmen in the security system. He referred to a barber called Pierre being killed while the applicant was still in Lebanon. He then indicated he developed suspicions about the SNP because its central office was in [Town 2] and run by [Ms G]’s grandparents and she had made a direct threat against him. But he said he had no evidence and couldn’t accuse anyone. He said that was his analysis because ‘the file’ was getting shut and closing and the investigation was getting inconclusive. He said maybe ‘they’ were getting involved or the security personnel were not carrying out the investigation because of his honour crime and the reason he was sent to gaol. He said it was similar to what happened in Australia - he was not allowed to complain or make a statement to the police about the crimes that had been committed against him in Australia. There is no evidence before me that the SNP has or would make death threats or kill anyone for committing acts of sexual violence. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the SNP would make death threats or kill anyone on behalf of persons who work for the party or their family members. There is no evidence that [Ms G] could or would use her grandparent’s association with the SNP to have the SNP make death threats against and/or harm the applicant if he returned to Lebanon. The applicant’s suggestion that [Ms G] and the SNP could have been responsible for the threats in Lebanon and/or would kill the applicant if he returned to Lebanon based on an ambiguous comment [Ms G] made in 2013 and because her grandparents run the SNP central office is not credible.
214.  	The applicant stated that he asked [Mr D] about ISIS and [Mr D] stated said it was not a direct accusation against ISIS but Tripoli had Islamic groups and ISIS was located there. The applicant then seemed to suggest that ISIS had members in gaol in Lebanon and Australia, and added that ISIS could reach Lebanon. The applicant’s reference to asking [Mr D] about ISIS seemed an attempt to distance himself from the suggestion that ISIS would harm him but the applicant had already made that suggestion himself at his interview with the delegate. Further, the applicant did not explain why ISIS or any other Islamic groups in Tripoli would want to target him for the crimes he committed in Australia. The suggestion that ISIS would want to harm him and could have been responsible for the threats is far-fetched. 
215.  	Thus, the evidence the applicant gave at the hearing about who he thought may have made the threats against him in Lebanon and may want to harm him was unforthcoming. Further, while the documentary evidence presented by the applicant suggested that members of his clan may have been responsible for the threats and wanted to harm him, the applicant not only adamantly rejected that possibility but suggested far less probable and farfetched possibilities even though, as he said, he had no evidence. I have concluded that the evidence the applicant gave about who may want to harm him and may have made the threats was affected rather than based on what the applicant genuinely believed. 
216.  	Noting that he had stated during his interview with the delegate that his brother had not been arrested as stated on his protection visa application form, I asked the applicant why that claim was made. The applicant suggested that the claim was made on the form without his knowledge by a former agent. However, that is contradicted by the information provided on the form itself that it was completed with the assistance of the applicant’s sister, [Ms A]. When I put that to the applicant he said he was surprised when the delegate asked (about his brother’s arrest) and he would ask his sister about that matter after the hearing. That reply did not explain why the applicant indicated an agent had completed his protection visa application form when his sister had completed it and seemed an attempt to shift responsibility for the claim to his sister. Further, the applicant signed the form and declared that its contents were true and correct. He thus offered no explanation for signing a form which contained an untrue claim. Finally, as I explain below I do not accept the explanation the applicant’s sister subsequently gave in a statutory declaration submitted after the hearing about why she made the claim. The inclusion of an untrue claim on the protection visa application form without a sound explanation undermines the credibility of not just the sister but the applicant himself. 
217.  	I noted that letters the applicant had submitted prior to the hearing indicated that he would be the victim of an honour crime. I asked the applicant what he understood was meant by an honour crime in Lebanon. He replied that was why he went to gaol. He said what happened was a disgrace to him, his family and his village. He said he felt ashamed to talk to anyone about the subject and avoided seeing people. He said his family were all in very good positions and everyone looked down on them; no one was talking to his niece and people will say his nephews and nieces are like him. He said it was a punishment for life. The response was not entirely clear. It concerned the crimes he had committed in Australia and how he as the perpetrator of sexual violence had brought shame to himself, his family and his village. It was not apparent how that related to what the applicant understood was an honour crime in Lebanon. The applicant then spoke at length and in detail about his attempt to ‘do rehabilitation’ in Australia after he served his punishment. That had no apparent relevance to what was meant by an honour crime in Lebanon. It seemed that the applicant sought to present a rehearsed expression of shame and regret and of his attempts to access rehabilitation services rather than attempt to respond directly to a question which related to the harm he would allegedly face if he returned to Lebanon.
218.  	I noted that he had presented evidence that he had committed honour crimes and would be the victim of an honour crime. I put to the applicant that according to the information in the sources I had consulted honour crimes were rare in Lebanon and the law did not allow the perpetrator of an honour crime to escape penalty and that Article  562 which had allowed for the reduction of sentences for honour crime was repealed in 2011. I put to the applicant that the information indicates that it is overwhelmingly women and girls who were the victims of honor crimes, perpetrators of honour crimes were usually males who targeted females because they were seen to have breached sexual or behavioral expectations, values, or norms. I put to the applicant that it did not appear that the crimes he had committed in Australia would be regarded as an honour crime and there was not a real chance he would suffer serious harm or significant harm as a victim of HBV.  The applicant responded that nothing was legitimate when it came to crimes – whether they were honour crimes or not. What that meant was unclear. He said that the perpetrators of the people killed in [Village 1] were still unknown. As already stated, the death of three men in or from [Village 1] possibly in suspicious circumstances is not indicate that the applicant will be the victim of an honour crime. He said that the rumors were that it was rape or sexual harassment or to do with honour. That is not reflected in the articles presented. I do not accept that assertion. The applicant said he did not know about reduced sentences or what the law says is a crime or offence. If he was unaware of the law then I expect he would not suggest that law would permit his killing in an honour crime. He referred to papers from the police station and other sources and news that say they are killed. He referred to the video containing a personal threat against him which mentioned his name and date of birth. He referred to the break-in in [Village 1], his details being taken, his ID card, license, the extract of his ID and family ID. He said it would not be difficult for them to kidnap him, kill him and harm him when he reaches the airport. He referred to the papers from the MP who said he could not protect him. His lawyer had given him strong advice not to return. He referred to the threat that the blue flies would not know his whereabouts. The applicant indicated that anything could happen so how could he go back. He questioned what guarantee there would be if the government sent him back when his own representative could not guarantee his security. He referred to streets being blocked, people shooting into the air with heavy artillery usually used in war, and the captain who was killed in the police station whose father is the head of intelligence. I have considered the evidence the applicant has referred to in his response. The independent evidence indicates that there is not a real chance that the applicant would be the victim of an honour crime for the crimes he has committed in Australia. 
219.  	The applicant stated that he had wanted to return to Lebanon but his brother told him not to return. I questioned whether the applicant genuinely had wanted to return to Lebanon because his migration history seemed to suggest otherwise. I noted that even though his relationship with his ex-wife had broken down soon after he arrived in Australia in 2011 he did not return to Lebanon then, instead he went to considerable lengths to try to obtain permanent residence here. I noted that after he was refused a permanent partner visa he applied to the MRT for review, when that was unsuccessful he sought judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court, Federal Court and High Court. When that proved unsuccessful, he sought ministerial intervention. The issue was not that the applicant was not entitled to pursue those avenues or that there was anything inappropriate about him doing so but that it indicated a desire to remain in Australia rather than return to Lebanon. The applicant replied that he had wanted to return to Lebanon or go to another country but the Lebanese Consulate refused to issue his passport. He said he would provide evidence of emails demonstrating that after the hearing. However, as I outline below, the emails sent after the hearing do not contain a refusal to renew the applicant’s passport. The emails undermine the oral evidence the applicant gave at the hearing that the Lebanese Consulate refused to renew his passport. 
Post hearing evidence 
220.  	After the hearing the applicant’s migration agent submitted the following documents. I have listed the documents under headings based on how they were identified by the migration agent. 
‘Submission’
221.  	In a submission dated 3 March 2020 the applicant’s migration agent confirmed some of the evidence the applicant presented at hearing. She stated that documents from ‘high authorities in Lebanon (Government-related sources)’ had been provided and were evidence that no one would protect the applicant if he returned to Lebanon. She stated that even though the revolution had ended and the Lebanese government had re-formed, it did not mean that what the applicant feared would not happen. I do not agree with the submission that no one would protect the applicant in Lebanon, but as I do not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will be killed or face serious harm or significant harm because of the crimes he has committed in Australia it is not necessary to detail my reasons. 
Articles 1-6
222.  	The documents referred to as articles 1 to 6 appear to be unaccredited translations from Arabic to English of online articles. The translations are not of a high standard and hence lack some clarity but it is evident that they relate to honour killings in Lebanon and Articles 562 and 252 of Lebanon’s Penal Code. 
223.  	Article 5 reports on the honour killing of a man. It is the only reference to the honour killing of a man in the articles. The article was published on 17 January 2020 under the headline ‘A crime that jolts northern Lebanon .. How did a young man Amr pay the price of his life ? for revenge’. The report begins by linking the killing of the man to events that occurred four years before in what is referred to as a ‘love story and sexual relationship’ between the man and a woman identified as ‘A’. Confusingly the report seems to go on to refer to the woman as ‘(p.)’ and to state that the man raped the woman and contracted to marry her to avoid punishment but divorced her after two months. What is meant by the man contracting to marry the woman he raped is unclear given that information before me indicates the law in Lebanon only allows the perpetrator of sexual a violence against a girl, not a woman, to avoid punishment by marrying the victim. The report then appears to indicate that the woman’s family wanted her to kill the man after he divorced her but she fled and went into hiding. Consequently, the woman’s brother killed the man ‘in a crime he considered out of honour and washing the family’s shame.’ This it is relevant evidence because it concerns a man who had reportedly committed sexual violence and was killed for reasons related to honour. However, the circumstances of that case are different to the applicant’s in important respects. It appears the man was not killed merely because he raped the woman (or girl) but that the reason or primary reason was that he divorced the woman (or girl) two months after marrying her to escape punishment for the rape. Further, the man was not killed by an unknown person, Hezbollah, the SNP, ISIS, or a clan member but the man’s brother-in-law, his wife’s brother. 
224.  	The remaining articles report on women who have been killed in honour crimes or in acts of domestic violence by an immediate male family member – in most cases by their husbands. The female victims were not killed by persons unknown to them, a clan member, a neighbour, Hezbollah, the SNP, or ISIS. 
225.  	Evidence of women killed in honour crimes by close family members and one man killed by a male member of his former wife’s family in the name of honour does not indicate that there is a real chance that the applicant will be a victim of a honour crime if he returns to Lebanon for the crimes he has committed in Australia and especially not in an honour crime committed by the people or person groups he has suggested. 
‘[Mr D] Lawyer’
226.  	This is a letter dated 26 February 2020 in which [Mr D] seeks to explain the oral evidence he gave at the hearing about how honour crimes are treated in the legal system in Lebanon. 
227.  	[Mr D] states that Article 562 was not the article he was referring to at the hearing. He refers to a number of articles of the Lebanese Penal Code including Article 252 but then quotes Article 253 which states that reduced sentences can be granted if mitigating reasons have been found. [Mr D] then refers to the case of an Indian national who had killed another Indian citizen for eating beef. [Mr D] reports that a Lebanese court found mitigating reasons in that case after taking into account that the beliefs of the murderer prohibited the eating of beef. [Mr D] states that if a court granted mitigating circumstances on the basis of beliefs in that case the same would apply in the case of a crime committed for other social or religious belief and then states that ‘honour, reputation, social traditions and religion’ would be mitigating reasons as well. I do not accept [Mr D]’s explanation. 
228.  	At the hearing [Mr D] stated that perpetrators of honour crimes would be granted mitigation in sentencing. Article 253 does not specify that honour, or any other matter, is a mitigating reason in sentencing. The information in [Mr D]’s letter does not indicate that the court characterised the murder in the case of the Indian national as an honour crime. [Mr D] extrapolates from that single case that other crimes committed for ‘social or religious beliefs’ would be regarded as mitigating reasons and then extrapolates further that ‘honour, reputation, social traditions and religion’ would give a perpetrator mitigating reason in circumstances the applicant would face. He does not present however evidence that Article 252 has been applied by any Lebanese court to crimes specifically characterised as honour crimes. 
229.  	Thus, [Mr D] sets out in his letter how a Lebanese court could apply Article 252 and the reasoning in the case of the Indian national to reduce the punishment of a perpetrator of an honour crime whereas at the hearing he stated that perpetrator of an honour crime would be granted mitigation in punishment under Lebanese law. I have concluded that [Mr D] invented the explanation in his letter after the hearing to explain the apparent inconsistency between his oral evidence and the information I had put to the applicant that Article 562 had been abolished. That undermines [Mr D]’s credibility. 
‘Emails from Lebanese Consulate’ 
230.  	These documents are emails sent between January and February 2019 regarding the renewal of the applicant’s Lebanese passport. According to an email sent [in] February 2019, the applicant was informed that the Lebanese Consulate could not renew his passport until they had received the applicant’s ‘NCCC’ file and it had been sent to Lebanon for approval. Therefore, rather than indicating that the Lebanese Consulate had refused to renew the applicant’s passport as the applicant claimed at the hearing, the email indicates the process that would need to be followed to apply for renewal of the passport. The emails do not indicate that the consulate refused to renew the applicant’s passport and indicate that the evidence the applicant gave at the hearing about this was misleading. 
‘Police Clearance’ 
231.  	This is a document titled ‘Judicial Statement number 2 (Police Clearance)’ which was issued by the Directorate General of Internal Security Forces in Lebanon on 2 March 2020. It states that the applicant’s brother has no criminal record. I have had regard to the document but it does not overcome my concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s brother and his evidence.  
‘Statutory declaration from sister’
232.  	This is a statutory declaration made by [Ms A] on 2 March 2020 in which she gives her reasons for stating in the applicant’s protection visa application that their brother had been arrested. 
233.  	She states that she is neither a lawyer or a migration agent, she did not consult or seek advice from a solicitor to help complete the application, she completed the application under stress and what she meant by stating that [Mr B] was arrested and threatened was that [Mr B] was asked to report to the police station and give a statement about what occurred. I do not accept that explanation. I do not accept that it is necessary to be a solicitor or migration agent or have the advice of either to differentiate between being asked to give a statement to the police and being arrested especially in circumstances where the brother was reporting an alleged crime rather than being a suspect. 
234.  	Neither the applicant nor [Ms A] have provided a reasonable explanation for why the claim that the applicant’s brother was arrested was made in the protection visa application, the making of the claim undermines the credibility of the applicant and [Ms A] and the reliability of their evidence. 
Conclusions and findings on material questions of fact 
Country of reference 
235.  	The applicant claims that he is a national of Lebanon and no other country. His protection visa application included a copy of the biodata pages of his expired Lebanese passports. On that basis and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I find that the applicant is a national of Lebanon and no other country. Lebanon is thus the country against which his claims are to be assessed. 
Home area in Lebanon 
236.  	The applicant has consistently claimed that he is from the village of [Village 1]. The evidence before me does not contradict that claim. I thus find that [Village 1] is his home area. 
Awareness of the applicant’s crimes in Lebanon 
237.  	The applicant has claimed that some or all of the victims of his crimes are of Lebanese descent. The social media posts indicate that the charges the applicant was facing in May 2013 were made public. It is thus plausible and I accept that his crimes have become known in Lebanon and particularly [Village 1] via social media and/or community networks. 
The threats in Lebanon contrived 
238.  	At the hearing I questioned whether the applicant’s siblings especially his brother had contrived or assisted to contrive the threats in Lebanon because they would prefer that the applicant remain in Australia so as to avoid social embarrassment and gossip they might face if he returned and because the applicant would rather remain in Australia. The applicant rejected the suggestion that he or his siblings would have done so. He said they would not spend the money involved to do so. He said the documents presented (from Lebanon) were from various people, from government sources and had been notarised and certified. He said he would not lie to the Australian government. He said he would not have to resort to contriving the claims because he could apply for a partner visa on the basis of his current relationship. Having regard to all the evidence, I have concluded that the 2016 intercom calls and threats, 2017 break-in and threatening note, and 2019 Masked Man Video have been contrived and were not genuine threats. My reasons are as follows. 
239.  	First and foremost, I did not find the applicant, his brother and [Mr D] credible witnesses. I do not regard their evidence and particularly their evidence about the threats to be reliable.  
240.  	Secondly, while I accept that the letters and legal documents from Lebanon are genuine, the mere fact they are from ‘officials’ or ‘government sources’ and have been notarised or certified does not attest to the accuracy or reliability of the contents of the documents. I note that neither [Mr I] nor [Mr J], whose letters I have already dealt with, were witnesses to the threats. In fact there were no witnesses to the intercom calls and threat allegedly received by the brother, no witnesses to the break-in or to the envelope containing Masked Man Video being placed on the door of the applicant’s home. The Appeal Prosecutor Complaint is based solely an account of the alleged intercom calls and threat given by the applicant’s brother. It thus merely contains the claims of the applicant’s brother who I have found is not credible. The Record of Evidence Report is based on an account given by the applicant’s sister who did not witness the break in. The report states that she gave the threatening note to the police and that two police officers inspected the premises and found a broken glass and strewn possessions. However, the police made no findings about who was responsible. 
241.  	Thirdly, relevant information that could have assisted the investigations into the intercom calls and break-in was not provided to the authorities specifically the suspicion that the threats were related to the applicant’s charges/crimes in Australia. In fact, the applicant’s sister told the police that she did not know the reasons for the threat and did not suspect anyone even though the threatening note would have indicated to her that it was connected the applicant’s crimes. Thus, contrary to the applicant’s contention that the police/authorities failed to properly investigate the threats, the evidence indicates that his siblings failed to provide the authorities with relevant information that would have assisted an investigation. That suggests his siblings did not want the incidents properly investigated. 
242.  	Fourthly, while the documentary evidence suggested that members of the applicant’s clan may have been responsible for the threats, the applicant rejected that possibility at the hearing and instead suggested the far less probable and farfetched possibilities that [Ms G], the SNP, Hezbollah, and ISIS were responsible even though he had no evidence to support those suggestions. 
243.  	Fifthly, I have concluded that the applicant’s brother would prefer that the applicant not return to Lebanon. The applicant’s brother indicated in his letter that he felt conflicted about his concerns for the applicant and his wife and children. The applicant’s brother echoed that at the hearing when he stated that he was in charge of his siblings, his mother and his children and he wanted to avoid adverse reactions and keep things under control. The applicant has also stated that his brother told him not to return because of the effect it would have on his family. Given the nature of the applicant’s crimes it is plausible that the brother’s wife would not want to have the applicant in her home or to have contact with their children. The evidence indicates that it would be preferable for the applicant’s brother if the applicant did not return to Lebanon. Additionally, the evidence indicates that the applicant’s brother has been actively involved in gathering evidence to assist the applicant. The applicant stated at the hearing that he had given his brother power of attorney, and his brother sought out the assistance of [Mr I] and [Mr J] and it is apparent from the evidence that the applicant’s brother liaised with [Mr D] on behalf of the applicant in relation to the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint and Masked Man Video. 
244.  	Finally, the applicant’s migration history indicates that he has wanted to remain in Australia rather than return to Lebanon. The applicant went to considerable lengths to remain in Australia after his marital relationship ended shortly after he arrived here almost a decade ago. The applicant claimed he could get a partner visa if he wanted to stay. However, as his last partner visa experience indicates, gaining permanent residence on the basis of a partner relationship is dependent to a large extent on the relationship continuing whereas the protection visa is not. Even if the applicant had conversations with his brother in August and September 2019 about returning to Lebanon that would not satisfy me that the applicant had a genuine desire or intention to leave to return to Lebanon or go to another country given his previous migration history. Further, the applicant provided misleading evidence about renewing his passport which indicates that he has not been truthful about not being able to leave Australia and his desire to leave. 
245.  	I have thus concluded that the intercom calls and threat reported in the Appeal Prosecutor Complaint, the break-in and threatening note at the applicant’s home in [Village 1] in 2017, and the Masked Man Video have been contrived. I thus find that the threats were not genuine, that they were not made with the intention of being carried out if the applicant returned to Lebanon.  
Future harm
246.  	Given I have found that the 2016 intercom calls and threat, 2017 break-in and threatening note, and Masked Man Video have been contrived and there is no genuine intention of carrying them out; the lack of credibility of the applicant, his brother and [Mr D], and the absence of credible evidence, I do not accept that the applicant will be harmed by Hezbollah, the SNP or anyone connected to the SNP or [Ms G], ISIS, any Islamic group or Muslims, his clan or any other clan, family or clan members of the victims of his crimes, or his ex-wife’s family.  
247.  	The applicant and his brother gave evidence about gossip, insults and rejection the applicant’s family have faced in Lebanon due to the crimes the applicant committed in Australia. In light of their lack of credibility as witnesses and the issues with their evidence about how the family has been treated, I do not regard that evidence as reliable. However, given the nature and number of the applicant’s crimes I consider it plausible and thus find that some people in in Lebanon and especially in [Village 1] have talked about and expressed adverse opinions about the applicant, his crimes and his family. I also consider it plausible and thus I find that some people have rejected members of the applicant’s family and that that the applicant’s family feel insulted and ashamed by the applicant’s crimes and their treatment. It is plausible and thus I find that this will also occur again if the applicant returns and that he too will be exposed to talk and adverse opinion and will be rejected by some people including family members because of his crimes.
248.  	I put to the applicant at the hearing that the above type of harm and not being able to visit his father’s grave did not appear to amount to serious harm or significant harm. The applicant stated that he would be ostracised by society. I accept that the applicant will be rejected by some people but there is no credible evidence before me that the applicant will be ostracised by society to the extent that he would suffer serious harm or significant harm. I reject that assertion. He said his family would be affected and gave some examples. The examples did not indicate that he would be subjected to serious harm or significant harm. He indicated he would be affected psychologically and would not have peace of mind. It is likely that the applicant will find the treatment distressing and have had regard to that. He then referred to the threat that he would be targeted at the airport. I have found the threats were contrived and will not be carried out. Finally, there is no credible evidence that the applicant would be prevented from visiting his father’s grave. I do not accept that assertion. 
249.  	On the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the applicant would face talk, adverse opinions, and rejection rising to the level of serious harm. Nor am I satisfied that the applicant would face talk, adverse opinions, and rejection which would reach the threshold of severe pain or suffering, or cruel or inhuman pain or suffering, or cause extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. Hence, I am not satisfied that the applicant would be subjected to talk, adverse opinions, and rejection amounting to ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, or ‘torture’ as defined s.5(1).  
250.  	Further, the information before me about HBV and sexual violence in Lebanon including the evidence provided by the migration agent after the hearing does not indicate there is a real chance that the applicant will be the victim of an honour crime, or that he will be killed, physically harmed or subjected to any other serious harm or significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) for the crimes he has committed in Australia
251.  	Having regard to the above, individually and cumulatively, I find that there is not a real chance that the applicant will be subjected to serious harm or significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) by anyone if he returns to Lebanon. 
Refugee criterion  
252.  	Having found that there is not a real chance that the applicant will be the victim of an honour crime or subjected to serious harm if he returns to Lebanon, I find that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution within the meaning of s.5J and therefore is not a refugee as defined in s.5H(1). Consequently, I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Complementary protection criterion
253.  	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). 
254.  	I have found that there is not a real chance that the applicant will be the victim of an honour crime or suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) if he returns to Lebanon. I therefore find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country (Lebanon), there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. I am thus not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
Conclusion 
255.  	There is no suggestion 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 the criterion in s.36(2).
decision
256.  	The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Mila Foster
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.
…