The Authority's reasons
9 Because of the manner in which this appeal proceeded (as explained below), there is value in including the summary of findings that was relied upon by the Federal Circuit Court judge (at [13] of the primary judge's reasons). The summary was taken from submissions prepared by the Minister's solicitors and was apparently accepted by the appellant as accurate.
12. The IAA considered the applicant's claims and evidence and made the following findings and statements:
12.1. Whilst the IAA accepted the central tenet that JN could have, and could continue to recruit in Lebanon, the country information was to the effect that recruits are volunteers. The IAA found that there was nothing in the applicant's submission or its attached information that indicated that JN was engaging in the forced recruiting of Lebanese citizens, inflicting violence on those that did not join, or was otherwise intimidating or threatening Lebanese Sunnis.
12.2. In relation to the applicant's fear of harm from JN for refusing to join, the IAA noted that the applicant completed his military training in 2004-2005 and that JN did not exist until 2011. Therefore, given the applicant's low military profile, the IAA did not consider that it was plausible that the applicant would be seen as a significant, important or remarkable potential recruit eight years after his training. The IAA did not accept the claim that JN knew all about the applicant and it was not satisfied that the applicant would be of any adverse interest to JN because he did not join them in 2013. The IAA therefore found that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm from JN if he returned to Lebanon.
12.3. Based on the applicant's interview with the delegate and his post interview submissions, the IAA accepted that the applicant could have had an interest in the FM in Lebanon and that he could have spoken to other people about it. The IAA also noted the country information before it that indicated low-level supporters and ordinary members of the FM faced a low risk of violence. The IAA was not satisfied that the applicant's role with the FM was any more than that of a low-level member and that he did not, and would not, have any particular profile or greater level of involvement if he returned to Lebanon. The IAA found that the applicant's claims of a prominent role with the FM had been embellished in response to the delegate's concerns.
12.4. The IAA referred to various DFAT country reports which assessed that ordinary Sunnis or other Lebanese were not at risk from sectarian violence in Akkar, that Sunni communities in the border regions faced a low risk of violence and that the potential for Daesh or JN to launch attacks in a Sunni area was unlikely.
12.5. The IAA stated that, while it was possible that the applicant could get caught up in generalised violence in any area of Lebanon, it found that this was a remote possibility, and in any event, it would not be as a result of the applicant being targeted because of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The IAA found that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm from any extremist organisations, or from any sectarian or generalised violence, if he returned to Lebanon.
12.6. In relation to the applicant's claims of suffering mental health problems arising from his voyage from Indonesia to Australia, the IAA stated that the extracts from IHMS did not indicate that the applicant had been undergoing regular mental health care or treatment and did not refer to the applicant's history or identify any particular condition or cause. However, the IAA accepted that the applicant could be suffering a degree of mental anguish. Having regard to the all the evidence and information in the material before it, the IAA was satisfied that the applicant would be able to access ongoing care and treatment in Lebanon if he needed it, and that he did not face a real chance of serious harm as a result of his mental health if he returned to Lebanon.
12.7. Having regard to the fact that the applicant left Lebanon lawfully as the holder of a valid passport, and having found that the applicant was not of interest to JN and that he was a low level supporter of the FM, the IAA stated that it was satisfied that the applicant did not face a real chance of harm for being a returned asylum seeker.
13. The IAA concluded that, having regard to all the claims and evidence before it, it was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm because of, or from any combination of, the attempts by JN to recruit him and his refusal to join them, his membership of and activities with the FM in Lebanon and Australia, any other extremist organisations, his mental health and for being a retuned asylum seeker. Therefore the applicant did not meet the requirements in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
14. In relation to the complementary protection criterion, the IAA found that there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned from Australia, there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm. Therefore the applicant did not meet the criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
10 It is also useful to include express reference to [19] of the Authority's reasons:
His post-interview submission also claims that while in Australia, he has had a prominent role in the FM. He claims that he has spoken in front of large crowds on a number of occasions between 2014 and 2016, has been the Secretary of the Youth Division, has travelled with high profile leaders of the FM including leaders from Lebanon, and has met with Australian parliamentarians in this capacity. I do not accept that the applicant would not have raised such a significant involvement either during the interview, or in the period after the break. I note that he was asked on a number of occasions if he had further claims to make and he said no. I also take into account that his claim of involvement with the FM only began to develop after the delegate raised concerns about the level of involvement. The applicant has also provided some photographs of himself at various functions that appear to relate to the FM but there is no other information apart from the applicant's claims about the circumstances or the applicant's personal involvement in the events. He has also provided a character reference from the FM that refers to his assistance in organising and participating in community events and activities, but I take into account that this does not refer to him having a position, role or official responsibilities. I also note that the applicant's post-interview submission that he is a person who "is very active with the [FM] and who, in this capacity, has accused Hizbollah of killing Rafiq Hariri during public speeches". He submits that he has made these accusations online, including in social media, but has not provided any evidence of these accusations. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that he faces any risk of harm from Hizbollah as a result of an active profile or any online activity. Having regard to all of this, I find that the applicant's later claims of a prominent role with the FM have been embellished in response to the delegate's concerns. I am not satisfied that the applicant's role with the FM is any more than that of a low-level member and that he does not, and will not have any particular profile or any greater level of involvement should he return to Lebanon.