I accept that the applicant is a citizen of Lebanon.
The applicant claims to fear persecution from members of an extremist Islamic group who were involved in a conflict in the Dinnieh area of Lebanon in January 2000. He claims that he informed upon the activities of some members of this group one evening and as a result the Lebanese Army detained members of the group. He claims that members of the group and his Muslim neighbours are aware that he was the informer and will seek to harm him if he returns to Lebanon now or in the foreseeable future. He claims that he cannot relocate from the area near Dinnieh because he does not have the financial means to fund other accommodation for his family.
I have considered the applicant's claims in his protection visa application and review application, his and his witnesses oral evidence, written submissions made on his behalf and the documents given to the Department and referred to by the applicant in his submissions to the Tribunal.
I am required to determine whether the applicant has a well founded fear and if so whether what he fears amounts to persecution for a Convention related reason. My task is to consider all the evidence, make findings on material questions of fact and then to give reasons for my decision.
I accept that the applicant and his family are Maronite Christians and that they lived in a house in the village of Alma before the Dinnieh incident in January 2000. I accept that the house was owned by the applicant's brother in law and after the Dinnieh conflict that the applicant and his family went to live with the applicant's his sister in law in another area of northern Lebanon.
I accept that on or about the 31 January 1999 the applicant and his wife were visiting a relative in hospital in Zgharta when they saw ambulances arriving at the hospital and were informed of the conflict which was taking place in the villages located near the village of Alma. They were understandably anxious about the safety of their children who were at home at this time and I accept that they telephoned the children to ensure they were safe and that the applicant and his wife returned home immediately.
I accept that on or about the evening of 31 December 1999 the family slept in the family home taking some precautions to make sure that family members were together. I also accept that the applicant's wife and the applicant observed lights in the distance early in the morning and that they telephoned the local police to report this activity. I accept that the applicant and his wife were so disturbed and frightened by the activity going on around them that night that they left the home in Alma the next morning and moved in with the applicant's sister in law who was living in another village some distance way from the Dinnieh area.
It may be that the applicant and his wife returned to the home from time to time to collect belongings however I do not accept that they returned for any lengthy period of time or resided in the village of Alma before their departure from Lebanon.
The applicant and his wife presented as highly anxious and agitated individuals who became quite distressed at times when discussing the application. The applicant's evidence was confused and contradictory however the wife's evidence was clear and concise and she had a good recall of the incident. The evidence is that the applicant did engage in paid work before he left Lebanon and that he and his wife removed their daughter from her school in Tripoli. I formed the view that the family of the applicant had previously lived a stable life in a small village and were highly distressed and frightened by the incident in which the group known as Takfir al Hijra engaged in a serious and violent conflict with the Lebanese Army for a period of about 4 days in January 2000. There were reports of the mutilation of a female civilian in the attack on the village of Kfar Harbou and the evident distress shown by the applicant, his wife and daughter when talking about this aspect demonstrates the fear that resulted from the circumstances of the incident. I accept that the applicant and his wife feared for their safety and the safety of their children and it may be that the failure of the applicant to obtain further paid work in Lebanon resulted from the almost paralysing effects of this fear.
However I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution from members of Takfir al Hijra or any extremist Islamic group if he returns to Lebanon now or in the immediate future. The applicant claims he is at risk because he telephoned a local police officer and told him about lights in the distance on or about the night of 31 December 2000. He claims that members of the group know that he is the person who informed upon them and will take revenge. The country information indicates that the Lebanese Army and the Takfir group were engaged in hostilities well before the 31 December and the attack on the village of Kfar Harbou. The Army deployed over 3000 troops in the area against 300 members of the group. By the evening of the 31 January 2000 the Lebanese Army was engaged in a serious armed conflict with members of the group and the applicant's phone call would have only confirmed the known facts that the group was dispersing into the mountains following the engagement.
The country information also indicates that there were numerous complaints from villagers in the Dinnieh area that members of Takfir were openly walking the streets with their weapons before the Army became involved in December 1999. There are no reports of any revenge attacks on villagers in the local area who made those complaints.
The Takfir group is described as an extremist Islamic group with a small number of members who fled the area after the Dinnieh incident. Members of the group were either killed or arrested and others fled the area. The group is isolated and does not have widespread support in the community. The Army crackdown resulted in the relocation and reduction in size of the group and whilst there are reports and rumours of sporadic activity I accept the country information that they have little or no influence or support in the Lebanese community.
I do not accept that the applicant has been targeted by members of the Takfir group or his Muslim neighbours. I do not accept his evidence or that of his witnesses that members of Takfir have been asking about his whereabouts since he left Alma. The evidence is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. There is no indication of how the applicant or his witnesses know the identity or purpose of people asking about his whereabouts. There is no logical reason why unidentified persons would continue to make enquiries about his whereabouts for a period of almost six years when it is clear that he and his family left their family home in January 2000 and have never returned. There is nothing to suggest threats have been made against the applicant and he has not suffered any harm following the Dinnieh incident and before he left Lebanon in March 2001. The evidence of his witnesses is vague and is said to come from other sources. I consider that the evidence that members of Takfir are seeking his whereabouts is not truthful. I find that his witnesses have given this evidence out of family loyalty or friendship. Whilst I accept that the applicant has a general fear of members of extremist Islamic groups as a result of his experience of the events involved in the Dinnieh incident I do not consider that there is any objective basis for a fear of targeted harm against himself or his family.
I accept the evidence of Brother Fernando that he has been counselling the family since 2003 however this evidence does not take the applicant's claims any further as I have accepted that the applicant has a real and genuine fear of Muslim extremist activity in Lebanon and that this has caused him and his family significant distress. Further since his temporary residence visa was not renewed I accept he has been under stress and worried about his and his family's future.
I have considered the situation for the applicant if he returns to Lebanon now or in the foreseeable future. I accept that he will suffer financial and emotional stress as he and his family have lived in Australia for 5 years and have ties to persons in the Australian community. However the country information indicates that Lebanon has a functioning political and justice system which has improved significantly in recent years. I find that all members of the Lebanese community are able to access reasonable state protection against threats of harm from members of extremist groups such as Takfir on a non discriminatory basis. In fact, the Lebanese government has been criticised by Amnesty for its heavy handed treatment of and denial of human rights to, members and suspected members of the Takfir group. The amnesty recently offered to detainees accused of criminal activity at Dinnieh has been generally well received by most of the Lebanese community as a step towards sectarian reconciliation.
With respect to the information contained in the two anonymous letters I have disregarded that information in determining this application. It is clear that the applicant and his family have been involved in a dispute with other members of the Lebanese community over work, financial debts and obligations in the period since their arrival in Australia. The purpose of the anonymous letters appears to be to denigrate the family and is mainly concerned with matters which have taken place in Australia and generally does not relate to the refugee claims made by the applicant. The only reference to the applicant's refugee claims is an allegation that the applicant lived in a Christian village and could not have given information about extremist activity. I consider that this is an allegation based on speculation and I do not give it any weight. Further the allegation that the person who has made submissions does not know the family very well is irrelevant. The applicant has obviously asked the author of the submissions to assist him in putting his case to the Tribunal in a clear and concise manner and that person has performed that service on the instructions of the applicant. Accordingly I do not accept that the information in those letters is credible, relevant or significant and I have not put the information to the applicant for comment.
I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution for reasons of his Christian religion or because he is perceived to he is opposed to extremist Islamic groups or for any other Convention based reason should he return to Lebanon now or in the foreseeable future. I am, therefore, not satisfied that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution for any Convention based reason.
Having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the first named applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act for a protection visa.
No specific Convention claims were made by or on behalf of the applicant wife and dependent children. The fate of their application therefore depends on the outcome of the first named applicant's application. As the first named applicant cannot be granted a protection visa, it follows that the applicant wife and children cannot satisfy the alternative criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) of the Act and cannot be granted a protection visa.