N94/02449 [1996] RRTA 2597 (10 September 1996)

This matter concerns a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (the Minister) in effect, to refuse to grant the Applicant Australia's protection as a refugee, as provided under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) prior to amendments which came into effect on 1 September 1994.

The Applicant sought protection as a refugee by an application for refugee status and Domestic Protection (Temporary) Entry Permit lodged with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (the Department) on 5 July 1993.

The decisions to refuse the applications was made on 11 November 1993 and the Applicant was notified of the decisions by letter on 2 December 1993. The Applicant applied for review of the delegate's decisions on 4 January 1994.

The Applicant was represented by solicitors throughout his application to the Department and Tribunal.

The Applicant is a single, male, national of Lebanon. The Applicant arrived in Australia in July 1992 as a visitor.

Section 413 of the Act provides that an application made before 1 July 1993 for review of an RRT-reviewable decision is taken to be a valid application made under s.412 of the Act if, in effect, a final review decision had not been made at that date, and the application was made in accordance with any relevant regulations in force at the time it was made.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the application for review has been validly made, and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision.

On 1 September 1994 the Migration Reform Act 1992 (MRA), by amendment to the Act, introduced a visa known as a protection visa for people who seek protection as refugees: see s.36 of the Act. This visa replaces the visas and entry permits previously granted for that purpose. Section 39 of the MRA provides, in effect, that refugee related applications not finally determined before that date are to be dealt with as if they were applications for a protection visa. Accordingly, for the purposes of this review the Tribunal regards the Applicant's primary application as an application for a protection visa.

The prescribed criteria for the grant of a protection visa are set out in Part 866 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations (the Regulations): see s.31(3) of the Act and r.2.03 of the Regulations.

It is a criterion for the grant of a protection visa that at the time of application the applicant claims to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and either makes specific claims under the Convention or claims to be a member of the family unit of a person who is also an applicant and has made such claims: cl. 866.211 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

It is also a criterion for the grant of a protection visa that at the time of decision the Minister is satisfied the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention: cl.866.221 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

The remaining criteria for the grant of a protection visa are, generally speaking, that the applicant has undergone certain medical examinations and that the grant of the visa is in the public and the national interest: cl. 866.22 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

"Refugees Convention" is defined by cl. 866.111 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations to mean the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Convention) as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Protocol). As a party to both these international instruments, Australia has protection obligations to persons who are refugees as therein defined.

In so far as relevant to the present matter, Article 1 A (2) of the Convention as amended by the Protocol provides that a refugee is any person who:

owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

This definition of a refugee contains various elements.

Firstly, the definition includes only those persons who are outside their country of nationality or, where the applicant is a stateless person, country of former habitual residence.

Secondly, an applicant must have a "well-founded fear" of being persecuted. The term "well-founded fear" was the subject of comment in Chan Yee Kin v. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62; (1989-1990) 169 CLR 379 (Chan's case). It was observed that the term contains both a subjective and an objective requirement. "Fear" concerns the applicant's state of mind, but this term is qualified by the adjectival expression "well-founded" which requires a sufficient foundation for that fear (at 396).

The Court in Chan's case held that a fear of persecution is well-founded if there "is a real chance that the refugee will be persecuted if he returns to his country of nationality" (at 389 and supported at 398, 407 and 429). It was observed that the expression "'a real chance' ... clearly conveys the notion of a substantial, as distinct from a remote chance, of persecution occurring ..." (at 389) and though it "does not weigh the prospects of persecution ... it discounts what is remote or insubstantial" (at 407). Therefore, a real chance of persecution may exist notwithstanding that there is less than a 50 per cent chance of persecution occurring (at 397-398).

Whether an applicant has a fear of persecution and whether that fear is well-founded, must be determined upon the facts as they exist at the date when a determination is required. However, the circumstances in which an applicant has left his or her country of nationality remain relevant and these are ordinarily the starting point in ascertaining the applicant's present status (see Chan's case at 386-387, 399, 405-406).

Thirdly, an applicant must fear "persecution". The term "persecution" is not defined by the Convention, but not every form of harm will constitute persecution for Convention purposes. The Court in Chan's case spoke of "some serious punishment or penalty or some significant detriment or disadvantage" if the applicant returns to his or her country of nationality (at 388). Likewise, it stated that the "notion of persecution involves selective harassment" whether "directed against a person as an individual" or "because he or she is a member of a group which is the subject of systematic harassment", although the applicant need not be the victim of a series of acts since a single act of oppression may suffice (at 429-430). The harm threatened may be less than a loss of life or liberty and includes, in appropriate cases, measures "'in disregard' of human dignity" (at 430) or serious violations of core or fundamental human rights. Indeed Hathaway defines persecution "as the sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights demonstrative of a failure of state protection": see Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Butterworths Canada Ltd, 1991), pp.104-105.

Therefore, a question sometimes arises as to whether financial grievance or economic hardship constitutes the breach of a basic human right. However, as Hathaway points out, "socio-economic human rights are abrogated only where a state either neglects their realization in the face of adequate resources, or implements them in a discriminatory way ...": see Hathaway, supra, p.119. The basic values contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which came into force on 3 January 1976, does not create obligations that States are required to fulfil immediately and therefore persons whose sole reason for migration is to achieve a better economic standard of living are generally excluded from refugee protection under the Convention: see Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Butterworths Canada Ltd, 1991), p.116ff.

Fourthly, the applicant must fear persecution or be at risk of serious harm for a Convention reason, viz. for reasons of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". If the harm suffered is related to some other reason, such as economic conditions, Convention protection is not available.

The Applicant submitted refugee status claims on form 306 to the Department on 5 July 1993. He also attended an interview with a Departmental officer on 12 October 1993 and provided a supplementary written submission dated 22 October 1993. This material is contained in the Department file number A93/037931.

The Applicant gave evidence at a Tribunal hearing conducted in Sydney on 18 July 1996. The Applicant was accompanied by his representative and required the assistance of a qualified interpreter.

The Applicant's claims to refugee status are as follows.

The Applicant was born in north Lebanon. He is a national of Lebanon. The Applicant was issued a passport by the Government of Lebanon in 1984 and the visa for entry was issued by the Australian embassy in Damascus. The Applicant was also issued a passport in 1992 by the Government of Lebanon. He presented both passports on arrival in Australia and the entry stamp by Australian immigration officials was inserted in the later passport.

The Applicant travelled to Damascus in 1984, 1986 and 1989. He applied unsuccessfully to gain residency status in 1984 and 1986 by making applications to the Australian embassy in Damascus. He also travelled to Cyprus in 1990 on two occasions to apply for a visa to travel to Canada.

Prior to arriving in Australia the Applicant lived in a village in north Lebanon where he worked as an elementary school teacher. He was previously employed as a carpenter. The Applicant's parents and siblings live in Lebanon and he has siblings living in Australia. His parents were in Australia as visitors at the time of the Tribunal hearing.

The Applicant fears persecution in Lebanon by Syrian and Lebanese authorities because he was born and lived in an area of Lebanon of Becharre where there are many members of the Lebanese Forces. The leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea is from Becharre. He claims that he has been imputed with political opinions of the Lebanese Forces and is therefore a target of persecution.

The Applicant claimed that about one week before he arrived in Australia he was at Beirut airport preparing to depart Lebanon for Australia. He was approached by four or five men in civilian clothes who demanded he show them his passport. The Applicant was accused of having a forged passport. They asked him where he was going. One of the men tore the front cover of his passport as he was examining the passport. The Applicant said that he was very upset as the damage to his passport appeared to be deliberate.

The Applicant was asked to accompany the men to a private room at the airport where his luggage was searched. He waited in the room about one hour before he was transported to another area of Beirut to a building where he was put into a room that looked like a jail. There were other people in the room who were also being detained. Some of the people were from the area of Lebanon where the Applicant lived. Another man at the detention centre shouted to the officials "Kill me and don't put me inside." The Applicant said that he was scared and cried.

The Applicant was detained for two days. He was interrogated and accused of having a forged passport. He was also asked where he was from and where he was going. The Applicant contacted friends who were able to arrange for his release from detention. His friends used personal contacts at the detention centre to arrange for his release. The Applicant complained to the officials about the tearing of his passport. They told him that he could apply for a new passport.

The Applicant applied to the Lebanese Government officials for a new passport and this was provided within three days. The Applicant was allowed to retain his old passport which contained the visa for Australia.

The Applicant was asked by the Tribunal who the men were who detained him at the airport. He said that the men did not identify themselves so he is not sure. However he thinks they may have been Syrian intelligence officials. He also suggested that they may have been Lebanese officials. He referred to the man who tore his passport at the airport as a Lebanese official.

The Applicant said that this incident at the airport in 1992 is the reason he fears returning to Lebanon. He claimed that if he returned to Lebanon he might be subjected to similar treatment as the 1992 incident. He said that this incident has shaken his confidence in living in Lebanon safely.

After the civil war ended in Lebanon in 1990, he was happy and optimistic that it would be safe to live in Lebanon. He undertook special studies and trained as a teacher. He had a job teaching and was generally content. Since the incident in 1992, he fears the security officials think that he is a member of the Lebanese Forces and that he will therefore be a target for politically-based persecution.

The Applicant told the Tribunal that he supports the Lebanese Forces but they has not been actively involved in militant or political activities of the Lebanese Forces. He said that the majority of the Maronite Christian community in the Becharre area supported the Lebanese Forces.

The Applicant told the Tribunal that he does not believe that he has been personally targeted for persecution however the 1992 incident at the airport indicates that he might be subjected to future persecution if security officials discover that he is from Becharre district. He claimed that the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, was arrested 'for the sake of revenge' and that he has recently been found to be innocent of charges against him.

During the civil war he had a number of experiences in which his safety was threatened and which he related in his application to the Department. However he told the Tribunal that these are past experiences and are not the reason for his fear of returning to Lebanon. His fear of returning to Lebanon stems from the way he was treated at the airport in 1992, however, his past experiences are relevant in that they demonstrate that political opinions can be imputed from his religion and place of residence.

The Applicant said that he was suspected of being a Lebanese Forces member by Lebanese officials when he travelled to Cyprus in 1990. The officials asked him about his place of residence when they examined his passport. He was permitted to depart and re-enter Lebanon without interference.

The Applicant claimed that Syrian forces stationed in the Becharre area gave Maronite Christians living in the area close attention both during and after the civil war. However after Geagea was jailed the Syrians relaxed their interest in Christians in the area.

In about 1979 to 1980 during the civil war in Lebanon, the Applicant was detained by Syrian forces when the Syrian forces intervened in a struggle between two Christian religious groups in his village in north Lebanon. The Applicant belonged to one of the parties to the dispute. He and another member of his group were taken by the Syrians. They were questioned and beaten. The Syrian soldiers said that they were investigating an incident involving the Christian groups. The Applicant and his friend were released after an hour. The Applicant did not have any further specific dealings with the Syrian forces until the incident at the airport in 1992.

The Applicant also related an incident in 1984 when he was abducted after leaving a dentist's premises in Tripoli. It was confirmed to him some time later that the dentist was a member of the Syrian National Socialist Party. The Applicant believes that the dentist arranged for the abduction because the Applicant was a Maronite Christian from the "Becharre" district and therefore suspected of being a Lebanese Forces member.

Subsequent to the hearing, the Tribunal sent the Applicant's adviser a copy of an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Cable Number OBI 1166, dated 25 June 1996, which states, inter alia, that:

To the best of our knowledge, no single class of citizens can be said to be suffering systematic discrimination on grounds of race, religion, political group/opinion or particular social group.

- Legal proscription against certain groups do not automatically translate into systematic persecution of anyone identifying with those groups. For example, the Lebanese Forces (LF) may be banned, but ordinary citizens expressing support for the LF leadership are not singled out for adverse treatment ....

The Tribunal invited the Applicant to comment upon this information.

The Applicant provided a written submission prepared by his adviser dated 30 July 1996. In that submission the Applicant reiterated that he fears persecution in Lebanon because he is a Maronite Christian from Becharre district and that for this reason he is targeted for persecution for imputed political opinions in support of the Lebanese Forces. He did not specifically comment upon the DFAT information.

The Applicant's adviser submitted late submissions dated 6 and 7 August 1996 in which the Applicant claimed that some three hundred supporters of the imprisoned Lebanese Forces leader, Geagea, were recently arrested by Syrian soldiers following a celebration of the dismissal of one of the charges against Geagea in the criminal courts. He claimed that those imprisoned were Maronite Christians from Becharre province. He claimed that this recent event supports his claim that the group, Maronite Christians from Becharre province, of which he is a member are subjected to persecution for their pro-Lebanese Forces political opinions.

The Tribunal sought information from independent sources about the incident raised by the Applicant. It noted that Agence France Presse, 17 July 1996, reported under the headline "65 Geagea supporters punished for celebrating acquittal" that:

Sixty-five supporters of former Christian warlord Samir Geagea were jailed by a military court Wednesday for celebrating his acquittal on a bombing charge at the weekend.

Geagea is already serving a life sentence on two separate murder convictions in other cases.

The 65 were jailed for between five and 20 days for carrying firearms and taking part in an illegal gathering, while 23 others were released, legal officials said.

All pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied carrying arms. the official press agency ANI reported.

Geagea, head of the now dissolved Lebanese Forces militia, was found innocent on Saturday of ordering a bomb attack against a church in February 1994 that killed 11 worshippers.

The verdict sparked an explosion of joy in his home village of Becharre in northern Lebanon where crowds fired in the air in celebration despite the heavy deployment of troops there.

Lebanese courts have twice sentenced Geagea to death and then commuted the sentences to life in prison for two other bloody incidents: the 1989 murder of a Christian doctor, Elie Zayeck, and the 1990 slaying of rival Christian leader Dany Chamoun.

Hussein Dakroub for The Associated Press reported on 13 July 1996 under the headline "Former Christian Warlord Acquitted In Lebanon Church Bombing" that:

... After the verdict, Geagea's supporters in his home village of Bsharre flooded the streets, jubilantly firing guns into the air. The verdict ended a two-year trial that stirred Christian-Muslim tension in a country still recovering from the devastating 1975-1990 civil war.

... Army troops in full combat gear fanned out today in Christian east Beirut and the Christian heartland to the north to prevent trouble by Geagea supporters. He still has some support among the right-wing Maronites, but they are not strong enough to be considered a threat to post-war stability.

In his home village of Bsharre, 70 miles north east of Beirut, people celebrating in the streets, firing their guns and shouting: "Long live Geagea! In blood and in soul we redeem you, Geagea!"

Lebanese army troops immediately cordoned off the village and arrested dozens of people, security sources said on condition of anonymity.

The Tribunal, in assessing whether the Applicant is a refugee in accordance with Article 1 A(2) of the Refugees Convention, is required to assess the application with respect to his country of nationality, or in the case of an applicant without a nationality, with respect to his country of habitual residence.

There is no dispute that the Applicant is a national of Lebanon. The passports issued to the Applicant by the Lebanon Republic in 1984 and 1992 provide documentary evidence of his Lebanese nationality.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is a national of Lebanon and it has therefore assessed his claims to refugee status by reference to Lebanon as his country of nationality.

The Applicant fears persecution from Lebanese and Syrian security authorities in Lebanon because of political opinions imputed to him. He claims that the security authorities identified him as a supporter of the Lebanese Forces because he is a Maronite Christian and because he comes form the district of Becharre where there the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea lived.

The Applicant claimed that his detention at the Beirut airport in 1992 demonstrates that he is the target of persecution as a Lebanese Forces supporter and that he would therefore be at risk of future persecution.

The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant has been identified as a Lebanese Forces supporter, nor does it accept that the Applicant is a target of future persecution.

When the Applicant was interrogated at the Beirut airport and detained for two days, he was repeatedly accused of having a forged passport. He was not specifically interrogated about or accused of being a member or supporter of the Lebanese Forces. He was also given an unconditional release. There is not sufficient evidence that the security officials identified the Applicant as a member or supporter of the Lebanese Forces.

The Tribunal regards the Applicant's claim that comments by the security officials about the village of his birth and the "Becharre" district meant that he was under suspicion of being a Lebanese Forces member or supporter as unfounded speculation.

Further, the Applicant was released without conditions or restrictions on his movements and he was advised that he could apply for a new passport to replace the passport that was damaged by the security officials. Within a period of only three days a new passport was issued to the Applicant and he was permitted to legally depart Lebanon a week later without any further interference by any security officials. If the Applicant had been identified as a Lebanese Forces political dissident and was targeted for persecution, it is implausible that he would have been provided with a new passport by the Lebanese authorities and allowed to legally depart Lebanon without interference.

Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant was deeply distressed at having his departure from Lebanon delayed, having his passport damaged and being detained for investigation, it does not regard the harm to the Applicant as persecution. The Applicant was detained by security officials authorised to undertake an investigation of the Applicant on the basis of suspicion that he had a forged passport. He was therefore investigated in relation to a criminal offence which a legitimate exercise of state power.

The US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1993, published in February 1994, states with respect to "Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile" in Lebanon that:

Arrest warrants are required before arresting a suspect. There were credible reports, however, of the availability of blank warrants signed by the military prosecutor. By law, arresting officers must refer suspects to a prosecutor within 24 hours of arrest. A suspect must be released if not charged within 48 hours of arrest. However, some government prosecutors authorized the indefinite detention of suspects for interrogation without reference to a court or a judge. The law permits incommunicado detention at the discretion of the investigating judge. Every person arrested has the right to legal counsel, but there is no public defender's office. The bar association has an office to serve those who cannot afford a lawyer. Bail is permitted in most cases, excluding felonies.

In the present case the Applicant was released at the end of 48 hours investigation which was in conformity with Lebanese law. It also appears from the above report that Lebanese law permits security officials flexibility to undertake investigations in the manner applied to the Applicant. As the officials appear to have acted within their legal powers and the Applicant has not suffered serious harm, the Tribunal does not regard the incident as an act of persecution.

The release of the Applicant from custody and his legal departure from Lebanon soon after indicates that the Applicant has not been targeted for persecution as a Lebanese Forces dissident. In view of the lack of ongoing adverse treatment and the Applicant's evidence that he was not actively involved in the political or military wings of the Lebanese Forces, the Tribunal regards the Applicant's fear of politically based persecution to be not well-founded.

The Applicant claimed that he is a supporter of the Lebanese Forces from "Becharre" district and that he would therefore be the target of persecution by Government and Syrian authorities in Lebanon.

The DFAT report, Cable O.DM42741, dated 21 August 1994, indicates that the majority of Lebanese Forces members and supporters are not the targets of persecution in Lebanon. It states inter alia:

The justification for the dissolution of the LF and detention of some members (but only a small minority) was for alleged involvement in various capital crimes. There has been no obvious detention of persons simply for being members of, or sympathisers with, the LF.

While the LF could never have claimed to represent mainstream Maronite opinion, members and sympathisers would run into the thousands (our understanding in May was that about 40 LF members were in detention).

It would therefore seem, on the basis of the Government's actions against the LF (in which it has sought to convey an adherence to the law) that there is little, if any, evidence that "a person who has lived in East Beirut would be at risk of persecution because of an imputed political opinion as a supporter of the Lebanese Forces if returned to Lebanon". There is, as far as we are aware, no evidence of persecution of persons in Lebanon on the sole basis of their being supporters of the LF.

A subsequent report from DFAT, cable OBI 1166, 25 June 1996, re-affirms the view that "ordinary citizens expressing support for the LF leadership are not singled out for adverse treatment". The Applicant was given an opportunity to address this DFAT opinion in writing after the Tribunal hearing but he did not avail himself of that opportunity.

The Tribunal accepts the opinions provided by DFAT that ordinary citizens who support the Lebanese Forces are not targets of persecution in Lebanon. The information from DFAT refutes the Applicant's claim that all supporters of the Lebanese Forces, particularly those from "Becharre", are targeted for persecution and that the imprisonment of the leader of the Lebanese Forces, Samir Geagea, proves that all Lebanese Forces supporters are at risk of persecution.

The Tribunal does not consider that the recent disturbance in the village of "Becharre" where Geagea was born is indicative of systematic persecution of supporters of Geagea.

The report by Agence France Presse, 17 July 1996, supra, stated that Geagea supporters in the village of "Becharre" were arrested for carrying firearms at an illegal gathering and that the 65 people found guilty, they were sentenced to between 5 and 20 days imprisonment while 23 others were released.

Also, Hussein Dakroub for The Associated Press, 13 July 1996, supra, reported that the arrests were undertaken in the village of Becharre by Lebanese army troops.

The independent reports do not support the Applicant's claim that 300 supporters of Geagea were arrested but rather the number was 88 people.

The people arrested were arrested for their involvement in an illegal activity and were brought to justice expeditiously. The sentences for the 65 found guilty of criminal offences ranged from 5 to 20 days. This does not appear to be excessive and there is no evidence that those detained were not given a fair trial.

The Tribunal does not accept that this incident demonstrates harm amounting to persecution and that the detention was for reasons of political opinion. The reason for the detentions was breach of Lebanese law. The law is of general application and does not discriminate against Lebanese Forces supporters.

Further the incident occurred in the home village of Becharre where Geagea was born. The Applicant was born and lived in a village which is in the "casa" or district of "Becharre" but is some distance from the village of "Becharre". The reports of the recent incident indicate that the arrests were isolated to the village of Becharre and did not involve Casa Becharre.

In any event, the Applicant was not in Lebanon at the time of the incident in which some people were arrested in the village of "Becharre". The Tribunal does not find that the Applicant has a risk of persecution in relation to that incident and it does not accept that the incident reveals an ongoing threat of persecution of Christians living in the district or Casa Becharre. It finds therefore that there is no real chance that the Applicant would suffer persecution as the result of the incident.

The Tribunal therefore rejects as unfounded the Applicant's claim that he, as a Lebanese Forces supporter, would be the target of persecution if he returned to Lebanon.

The Applicant claimed that he was identified as a Lebanese Forces supporter when he passed through Lebanese security checking procedures during two trips to Cyprus in 1990. He claimed that his birth in a village in Casa Becharre provided the basis of that identification. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was permitted to travel to Cyprus despite this identification. The Tribunal therefore finds that, if the Applicant were identified as a Lebanese Forces supporter, he was not subjected to adverse treatment because of the political opinions imputed to him by the Lebanese officials.

The Applicant was also permitted to travel to and from Damascus in 1984, 1986 and 1989. He passed through Lebanese and Syrian security during those trips without interference. There is therefore no history of the Applicant being the subject of persecution for reasons of political opinion.

The Applicant recounted an incident of being detained for one hour and mistreated by Syrian forces for reasons of his religion in about 1979. He does not currently fear persecution for reasons of his Christian religion in Lebanon. The Tribunal finds therefore that the Applicant does not have well-founded fear of persecution because of his religion in Lebanon.

The Applicant described an incident in 1985 when he was kidnapped after attending a dentist in Tripoli who he has since been informed was a member of the Syrian Nationalist Party. The Applicant explained to the Tribunal that he does not fear persecution by the Syrian Nationalist Party at present because of the changes in Lebanon since the ending of the civil war.

The US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1992, published in February 1993, at page 1044, states that the Taif agreement of 1989 ended the sixteen year civil war in Lebanon and the first parliamentary elections were held in 1992. The government led by the Prime Minister who is a Sunni Muslim, comprises both Muslims and Christians committed to consolidating its authority over Lebanese territory.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), in Cable O.DM34327, 7.6.91, stated that Lebanon and Syria signed a Treaty of Fraternity, Co-operation and Co-ordination on 22 May 1991 and the Lebanese Government has made 'considerable and genuine' attempts to establish legitimacy throughout the country and this has been largely successful with the exception of areas in the south. This treaty between Syrian and Lebanon, known as the Taif Accord, brought sixteen years of civil war in Lebanon to an end.

In view of the establishment of a legitimate central government in Lebanon and the ending of the civil war, the Applicant has available to him state protection from any threat of harm by members of the Syrian Nationalist Party. The Tribunal therefore finds that the Applicant does not have well-founded fear of persecution from the Syrian Nationalist Party in Lebanon since the ending of the civil war in Lebanon.

In sum, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that the Applicant will be the target of persecution for imputed Lebanese Forces political opinions or of sympathy with the Lebanese Forces, or for reason of his religion, from state authorities in Lebanon.

It does not accept that he is a target of persecution because he is a Maronite Christian from the district of "Becharre", Lebanon.

It also finds that the Applicant does not have a real chance of persecution by the Syrian Nationalist Party in Lebanon because he has access to state protection from persecution by members of this party.

It follows therefore that the Tribunal find the Applicant is not a "refugee" within the terms of the Convention and its Protocol. As the Applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention, a protection visa cannot be granted.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is not a refugee and is not entitled to protection as a refugee under the Migration Act 1958.

The Tribunal varies the delegate's decisions so that the decisions now have effect as decisions to refuse to grant the Applicant a protection visa.

[1]In accordance with s.431 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), (as amended), the published version of this decision does not contain any statement which may identify the Applicant or any relative or other dependant of the Applicant.