1412441 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3214

1412441 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3214 (22 January 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1412441

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Sophia Panagiotidis

DATE:22 January 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 22 January 2016 at 1:55pm

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 dependant.

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 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 Egypt, applied for the visa [in] October 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] July 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 September 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. 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, the applicant 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.

6. 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as 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.

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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

10. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has well-founded fear of persecution and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country or whether there are 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 the applicant will suffer significant harm.

11. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    Background

12. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] February 2009 after having been granted a [student] visa. He was granted a further student visa [in] April 2011 which ceased [in] August 2011. The applicant was granted a [further temporary] visa [in] June 2012 which ceased [in] December 2013. The applicant lodged an application for a protection visa [in] October 2013.

13. The applicant’s claims as included in his application for the protection visa can be summarised as follows:

    ·He travelled to Australia to finish his education and for a better future. More importantly he wished to be in a place where he is free to practice his religion without any abuse.

    ·In his childhood, in Egypt he has experienced harm many times at school and in the streets because he is a Coptic Christian.

    ·[In] July 2013 he went to Egypt but was afraid to return because of what was going on there after the Muslim Brotherhood came to power. He had to go because his mother was having [a medical] operation. She could not have the operation because they live in Upper Egypt and it was not safe to travel. During the first week he was back in Egypt he received a threatening phone call from a blocked number saying “we were waiting for you to come back, you think because you are not in Egypt, you Coptic dog, you can say or write anything you say on your Facebook wall? We will get you, you are a dead man.”

    ·The applicant states that for a while he used to write on his Facebook how he felt whenever there were attacks on Christians in Egypt and also when Mr Mohammad Morsi became the president of Egypt. He did not expect to have this level of trouble on his return.

    ·On [date] August 2013, some churches in Egypt were attacked and burned by the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim fanatics as well as properties owned by Christians. The applicant's house was attacked on that day when some people threw a Molotov cocktail.

    ·[In] September 2013 the applicant left his home and headed towards the church for mass. A couple of streets from his home he was hit on the back of the head and fell to the ground. He noticed five or six men with their faces covered who started to beat him. He put his face towards the ground but they kept on going and he lost consciousness. All he remembers after that was being home with pain all over his body, especially his back.

    ·[Later in] September 2013 a childhood friend visited the applicant at home and he was sorry to hear what had happened to him. He knew the applicant was in great danger and it was not safe for him to go anywhere so he offered to help him get out of the village to go to Cairo and then travel to Australia. His friend came the next day and brought his sister’s clothes (a burqua) for the applicant to wear and walked with him to [Town 1] for the applicant to take the bus to Cairo. This friend saved his life even though he is a Muslim. His friend gave him a bus ticket and he got onto the bus to Cairo and took a plane to Australia.

    ·The applicant believes that he was attacked because he is a Coptic Christian and because he had posted his opinion whenever Christians in Egypt were attacked.

    ·The applicant does not believe the authorities can protect him because the people who attacked him are well organised and the authorities in Egypt are very weak. If he reported the attack to the police then his family safety would be jeopardised more. He also cannot identify the people who attacked him as they were masked.

14. The applicant has provided the Department with translated copies of his baptism certificate which shows he was baptised in the [specified] Province on [date][1]. He has also provided a translated copy of a reference letter from [Father A] of [Church 1] to the Department confirming his baptism[2] as well as identity documents for himself[3] and for his parents including their marriage certificate[4]. The applicant also provided extracts from what he has identified as on-line postings[5] in English and Arabic. The applicant has also provided various articles regarding the persecution of Copts in Egypt[6], a transcript of a discussion in the NSW Parliament regarding Egyptian Coptic Christian persecution on 14 October 2011[7], photographs of churches burning and other property damage and injuries sustained by the applicant[8].

    [1] Folio 96 of the Department’s file

    [2] Folio 94 of the Department’s file

    [3] Folio 88, 52 & 54 and 104 to 129 of the Department’s file

    [4] Folio 92 of the Department’s file

    [5] Folios 79 to 86 of the Department’s file

    [6] Folios 70 to 78 of the Department’s file

    [7] Folios 56 to 69 of the Department’s file

    [8] Folios 97 to 99 of the Department’s file

    The delegate’s decision

15. The application for the protection visa was refused by the delegate [in] July 2014. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal and the reasons for the refusal of the protection visa are as follows:

    ·The applicant is accepted as being a Coptic Christian and that Coptic Christians are considered a religious minority in Egypt.

    ·The delegate did not consider the applicant has a sufficient profile to warrant a subjective fear of harm from the Muslim Brotherhood or other fundamentalists. Although the delegate accepts that the applicant posted Facebook comments and some blogs containing comments critical of ex-President Morsi and Muslims in general but he found it difficult to believe that these pages would be viewed by fundamentalists in [Town 1], Upper Egypt.

    ·In relation to the applicant's’ claim to have been attacked [in] September 2013, the delegate noted he was not admitted to hospital and nor did he receive any medical attention from a doctor. The attack was not reported to the police, although the delegate accepts the applicant's statement that going to the police would have been a waste of time given the claimed circumstances. The delegate considered the injuries sustained by the applicant were inconsistent with a street attack by a gang of five or six men because there was no sign of injury to his head nor bruises to his face. He considered the injuries as shown in the photographs would not have caused a lack of consciousness and although there were few signs of bruising on his back, these were not consistent with kicking and nor were there signs of bruising to his arms despite the claim he put his arm around his head to protect himself. The delegate concluded these injuries were not received in a street assault as claimed but in a controlled environment.

    ·The delegate found it implausible that the applicant did not know how he returned to his parents’ house after the attack because even if he was carried unconscious to his parents’ house, the rescuer or rescuers would have explained to his family what had happened who in turn would have told him.

    ·The delegate found the applicant's account of having to wear a burka to leave his house as confused.

    ·The delegate concluded that the applicant had embellished his claim in order to enhance his claims for protection.

    ·The delegate was also concerned about the delay in lodging the application for the protection visa. The applicant had been in Australia for four years prior to making the application and this raised serious concerns about the immediacy, gravity and credibility of his claims to fear persecution in Egypt. The delegate also considered the delay indicates that at the time of his arrival and subsequent years, the applicant did not have a strong fear for his personal safety or future well-being in Egypt.

    The hearing

16. At the hearing held on 17 September 2015, the applicant confirmed that he returned to Egypt in August 2013 because his mother was due to have an operation. While he was there he was subjected to an attack. That is why, when he returned to Australia he made the application for a protection visa.

17. The applicant confirmed that his [specified family members] live in Egypt. His [Sibling A] lives and works in [Country 1] as [an occupation]. His father used to work in [Country 1] as [another occupation]. He lived and worked in [Country 1] for more than 30 years and he would travel back and forth to Egypt. His father now lives in Egypt and works [in a business]. His home is in Upper Egypt where the political situation is difficult.

18. The applicant comes from a small village near the town of [Town 1], in the province of [Province 1]. Where he comes from there is a population of about ten percent Christians which is large compared to other towns in the area. The area has had many incidents involving Muslim extremists. The level of education in the area is poor but extremism is very high. The Muslim extremists burnt crops on his father’s land, his brother has been harassed and there have been threats to Christians in the area. That is the nature of that region. His brother returned to live in Egypt as he was concerned about his family and their safety. It took him some time to finalise his work commitments and he returned around eight months ago. His [Sibling A] is sending money to his family in Egypt. His father also decided to return to Egypt as he was not treated particularly well in [Country 1]. He considered that the [regional] countries treat foreigners, especially Christians poorly. A foreigner, particularly a Christian will never be allowed to remain in those countries to get permanent residency or citizenship. His father sacrificed many things for his family by working in [Country 1] and the applicant had not seen his father for a long time.

19. The applicant said that life in Upper Egypt is difficult. His mother is [age] years old and has only left her home town on two occasions.

20. The applicant said that some Muslim extremists set fire to his father’s crops in November 2013 and at that time his father was still living and working overseas. That fire and his mother’s safety were key reasons he returned.

21. The applicant said that problems of this nature occur on a daily basis in his home region. Not only burning and property damage but also harassment of women and girls, beating of Christians and being cursed. There are also occasions when Muslims refuse to serve Christians in shops and they spit on them. His parents do not inform him of all the incidents that have occurred since he left Egypt. His brother has told him that he has been abused in the market regularly. There is no point reporting these things to the authorities in his area because it is difficult to prove anything any action is rarely taken. The police will also ask for bribes. There were many incidents where Christians have been victimised, attacked, and whose property has been damaged but no-one does anything about it.

22. The applicant told the Tribunal he came to Australia in 2009 to further his studies. He has completed a Diploma of [Subject]. He did this to get qualifications and the experience of his father and [Sibling A] working overseas had been positive and they had become affluent and were doing well. The applicant intended to return to Egypt and start his own business and he did not think of working overseas as a foreigner like his father and his brother. He wanted to specialise in [a service business] and would have worked with his brother. His father had provided the funds for him to complete his training and was going to support his business. The applicant confirmed he applied for and was granted a [further temporary] visa in 2011 and was working. Then the situation in Egypt erupted which has resulted in no security at home. When he spoke to a migration agent about applying for a [further temporary] visa, it was because the situation in his country was very volatile and he wanted to stay away until things calmed down.

23. The applicant confirmed he fears returning to Egypt because he is a Christian and he fears harm. He failed to explain himself when he was speaking to the delegate. Since the revolution, Christians are continually being targeted. Since the age of around [age range] he has been involved in the church. He attended [College 1] and was very active as a student and participated in the Youth Ministry which travelled around Egypt to visit churches and communities. It is not possible to do such things in Egypt without getting permission from the authorities and therefore his name is listed with the public security authorities as belonging to the church. The school he attended was in Cairo and he led a Youth Ministry team while he was at the school. His father has always been concerned about his safety because he insisted on doing this type of work. His parents sent him to [College 1] in Cairo and although the church it is affiliated with is not recognised in Egypt it is a Christian school and belongs to [a different denomination]. He was a boarder at the school. His parents considered it was a good idea for him to attend that school away from his home because since his childhood he had always been outspoken about his religion and has always been active in the church. After he had been with the school for two years he also joined the preaching team. Initially he had refused to join the preaching team because the church and school was not Coptic Orthodox but eventually he decided to do so because it was Christian. He had to get permission from the government to travel and preach. Members of the Coptic Orthodox church are not activists in the same way as the [different denomination] in that they do not go out and preach and proselytize. He did this until he was [age] years old.

24. The applicant said that as a child, before he went to the boarding school he often got into trouble for speaking about Christianity, particularly when he was goaded by Muslims. On one occasion, one Muslim boy said to him, who was ruling in Heaven when God came to earth? This was said in a sarcastic way and he replied that when Moses spoke to God who spoke to him through a tree, who was ruling in Heaven? This is in the Koran. The Koran also tells Muslims they should not argue with Christians. He said he has always been outspoken about his religion, not in a belligerent, or impolite way but people often do not accept what he says. He does not want to be an extremist Christian because that is no different to being an extremist Muslim but he can be punished and they are not.

25. He believes his profile is such that he would attract adverse attention from the Muslim Brotherhood. This was only mentioned briefly during the interview with the delegate. This is why he was attacked, because he had made his feelings known on line.

26. The applicant told the Tribunal that he is unable to relocate because wherever he lives in Egypt, he can be found. When a person moves to another location, they must inform the authorities and extremists are able to get information on the whereabouts of people as they have insiders working in relevant agencies. The Minister of the Interior who is responsible for the county’s security was replaced a few months ago because of information leaks from his department which resulted in attacks on government authorities by extremists. The applicant said there are about 5 million active members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and not all of them have high profiles and work for various authorities. The applicant believes that due to his outspoken Christian views he will be identified and found no matter where he lives in Egypt. There is no secure place for him. The government of his country cannot protect him and have failed to protect others.

1. The applicant believes that young people in Egypt have been brainwashed by extremists and they are incited to hate Christians.

2. The applicant said that the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt is systematic and people do not speak out as they prefer to be silent rather than exacerbating the situation. If someone comes up to him while in Egypt and insults him or hits him, he will not retaliate because he is a Christian. In Upper Egypt, there are many bit tribes or families. They own property and have weapons. If a poor Christian is attacked, it is usually by a whole tribe or group, not individuals. People cannot always help them. Where he comes from, there are places where Christians are not able to go because it is dangerous. The applicant said that in the last two revolutions there were no soldiers sent to Upper Egypt and they had many problems. Even before the revolutions, in high profile areas in Egypt there was no police presence because these areas are not important either politically or economically.

3. The applicant said that at one time, he seriously thought about becoming a monk and his father believed he would join a monastery, but this did not work out. He is a moderate Christian. [College 1] offered him the opportunity to study at a university in [Country 2] but he decided he did not want to do that.

   Additional information provided by the applicant

4. The applicant has also provided the following additional information to the Tribunal:

   ·A submission made on 4 August 2015 addressing concerns raised by the delegate.

   ·An article Coptic families evicted from village over Facebook posts dated 1 June 2015 posted by the Australian Coptic Movement[9].

   [9] article Sectarian Attacks in Egypt, dated 1 August 2015 listing 297 documented attacks on Coptic Christians and churches[10].

   [10]

   ·An article Egyptian Coptic family displaced over blasphemy claims dated 2 June 2015[11].

   [11]

   ·An article Coptic families forcibly displaced after Beni Suef attacks, Daily News Egypt dated 31 May 2015[12]

   [12]

   ·A submission dated 7 October 2015 (in summary):

   ·The visa applicant is a Coptic Christian who has grown up in Upper Egypt in a village located to the north of the main city ([distance] away).

   ·Over the last few decades Christians in Egypt in particular in Upper Egypt have been the main target by the Islamic extremists and other parties know by different names. Christians are an easy target for those parties mainly because the police or any government security officials won’t intervene as they are scared to be involved in tensions and clashes between Coptic Christians and Muslims.

   ·Tribal and family background play a significant role for Muslims as a majority to take over and push their own agenda and make other minority groups in particular Christians to accept all they want to impose.

   ·The issue of targeting Christians in Upper Egypt started in early 80’s, in absence of education and high unemployment, Islamic militias and extremists found the perfect grounds to have influence and control and to first target Christians before they could take over the government.

   ·History and UN reports all support the above and also that the persecution of Christians in Upper Egypt is still on the rise. The government does not intervene to stop it or try to find some kind of way for providing Christians with the required security as it’s not an easy task to ease clashes with prominent Islamic extremists and their supporters as they have weapons to fight against government.

   ·During the instability of Egypt back to 2011 and up till now the weapons are available for sale and they used to come through Libya after the fall of Kaddafi and the Sudan which is currently under the control of Muslim extremists. As there has been a lack of security and border protection a flood of weapons have arrived in Egypt. Most of the weapons are centralized in Upper Egypt as this is where there is high demand to buy weapons.

   ·The visa applicant’s father went to [Country 1] to find better employment opportunities and left behind his children. The visa applicant has shown signs since his childhood of being attached to his church and standing against people who either made fun of his religion or who attack his religion.

   ·The visa applicant was attending the church while he was at primary school, and was one of the active members at the church. It was no surprise that there were regular clashes with his Muslim schoolmates and people from his neighbourhood who were bullying him as he could not accept the fact that they were making fun of his religion, especially when he heard principles of Christianity being misinterpreted by them. He was always trying to explain the opposite of what they had been trying to make him to believe that he is an infidel. Since his childhood he was known as a boy who is very sensitive to his religion and this was a real concern for his parents as it was not safe for him.

   ·His parents decided to enrol him in a boarding school in Egypt known as [College 1] which is a Christian school that was not recognized by the Department of Education. He became part of the school activities and missions and was very happy to be involved in helping children and be a part of the mission and helping Christian needy families who were suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists. He was involved in these activities even though he knew that his involvement carrying a high risk of him becoming an easy target for extremists. The authorities had already been informed of his being involved in such activities as they are always checking on such people. Therefore the applicant was even prior to his departure from Egypt a person of interest for the authorities and his name was already recorded with the security officials as he had previously been interviewed and questioned previously.

   ·It is not a surprise that the visa applicant, after arriving to Australia did not stop sharing his opinions and his beliefs. He was actively using internet channels to make sure what was happening to his brothers in Egypt was a great concern and should be known and heard to others all over the world.

   ·The incident that took place in Alexandria against Christians and Coptic Church in [Town 2] had triggered anguish and sadness in the applicant and he tried to express his feelings on Facebook not knowing there may be consequences affecting his safety. Later he came to know he was monitored by locals and some friends and some members of also attention of some members of the security officials.

   ·A statutory declaration by the applicant dated 1 October 2015 in which he declares in summary that since childhood he has been an active member of his local church. He attended [College 1] in Cairo and continued to visit needy families in regional areas and cities in Upper Egypt and as such he was required to obtain permission from security bodies approving these trips. In Egypt, the state security is responsible for maintaining records of activists, including Christians who are active in providing support to Christian families all over Egypt. He therefore has a record in the state security office and has been interviewed and questioned in the past. Therefore it is easy for the authorities to identify him as a person of interest and are able to provide details to people or parties that could cause threats to his life. His life is therefore at great risk if he returns to Egypt as he could be easily identified once he arrives at any airport, and that combined with his having been outside Egypt for a fair amount of time, will add to the attention he has started to gather after he posted his thoughts of Islam on the internet and Facebook.

   ·An article Copts in Nag Rizk Sohag “Brotherhood” attacks us published in the Almasry-Alyum newspaper 6 May 2015 regarding attacks on property owned by Copts by masked gunmen and the kidnap of a young Coptic man for ransom. These incidents have become more widely known since the revolution of 25 January 2011 especially in the provinces of Upper Egypt and there has not been decisive intervention by the security forces to stop these attacks.

   ·An article published on the Mideast Christian News (MCN) website by Irene Moses dated 6 May 2015 Copts are subjected to looting, theft, kidnapping and extortion in the absence of systematic police[13].

   [13]

   ·An article by Steven Edwards, Sky News dated 5 May 2015 ‘You are a target’: Muslim extremists terrorize Egypt’s Coptic Christians, referring to Christians in Egypt facing a new wave of persecution at the hands of Muslim extremists. Human rights groups fear the situation could be on the brink of exploding according to Mina Thabet, a Coptic activists and researcher at the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms. The article states[14]:

   [14]

   While Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has taken steps to protect Coptic Christians amid his calls for national unity, many of the latest incidents have occurred in Minya Governorate of Upper Egypt,…

   The mix of poverty and limited job prospects there is typical of social conditions Thabet says could trigger the sort of unrest in which the country’s Christians – comprising of Orthodox, Catholic and some Protestant members of the faith – become central targets, just as Jews were historically targeted during pogroms…

   A recent incident saw Muslim mobs in the Minya village of Nasreya descend on the homes of five Coptic students, chanting they has ‘insulted’ Islam in a video that was circulating showing the youths praying with their Coptic teacher.

   In fact, the students had been making fun of ISIS, according to the Coptic activists. While the police arrested the teacher and detained him for questioning over four days, the Muslim mobs threw rocks at the homes of the youths in a bid to force their parents to hand their children over to the authorities, Coptic media reports say.

   Blasphemy is a crime in Egypt, but human rights activists say the authorities have traditionally used the law to persecute minorities, a month them Christians.

   Thabet said the children remained detained by the authorities, as were other Christians who’d been victims of Muslim assaults.

   “We have five Coptic children charged with blasphemy and insulting Islam,” he said. “We still have other open cases where Christians are charged with inciting violence as if they were the perpetrators, but where they were the victims.”

   FoxNews.com reported last month how a Muslim mob attacked Christians in the Minya village of al Our, which had been home to 13 of the 21 Christians whose murder by ISIS in February was captured in a gruesome video appearing to show them being beheaded on a Libyan beach.

   The Muslim protesters had opposed the Christians’ plan to build a new church to honor the 21, and had pelted them with rocks as they chanted they would never allow construction to begin.

   This occurred despite President el-Sisi having personally given the official permission Egyptian law requires for work on a church to proceed – in contrast to no such permission being required for mosque construction.

   No sooner had that incident been “resolved” with a so called “customary reconciliation session” – the Copts said they were forced to agree that the church be built outside the village – when Muslim protesters attacked Christians in the Minya village of al-Galaa over the government approved demolition and reconstruction of that community’s Church of the Virgin.

   This was despite the Christians having agreed to a host of conditions, including that the church be restricted to one story, have no tower or bells, and that the village Christians apologize to the local Muslims for publicizing their plight in the media, according to the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), which publicized the incident.

   Police, meanwhile, chose the Orthodox Christian Good Friday April 10 to storm an Orthodox prayer house on the outskirts of Minya’s Maghagha City, confiscating altar artifacts on grounds the worshippers were praying without official permission…

   It also called on el-Sisi to personally intervene as it filed an official complaint against the Minya police force.

   The raid took place just a day after police closed down sections of construction work in the Minya village of Abu Qurqas.

   “It is astonishing that Coptic citizens’ exercise of their constitutional, legal right to worship and build, renovate and reconstruct houses of worship is still hostage to the approval of a majority of the area’s residents,” Ishak Ibrahim, chief of EIPR’s Freedom of Religion and Belief Program, said in a statement of the constraints imposed by the Muslim community.

   In an interview from his Egyptian base, Ibrahim told FoxNews.com that things were far worse for Christians in other parts of the Middle East.

   “We are not in a compression situation,” he said. “We are talking about rights, and (how) the state has not (fulfilled its duty) to protect the Copts and enhance equality” with Muslims.

   Still, he stressed the targeting of Christians in Egypt had noticeably “risen” this year, while Thabet said Christians made up the vast majority of some 100 Egyptians killed in religion based violence since the 2011 revolution that swept former President Hosni Mubarak from power.

   Christians faced considerable mob violence during the Egyptian security forces’ crackdown on supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi in August 2013, when some 80 churches around the country sustained damage or were burned down amid the chaos, Thabet said.

   Both he and Ibrahim criticized the authorities’ use of “customary reconciliation sessions” to supposedly reconcile community differences following attacks on Copts – even in many cases that might otherwise be referred to the courts.

   While Thabet said Copts were invariably obliged to accept “humiliating” conditions, Ibrahim said the sessions allow perpetrators to “escape from justice.”

   A sharp contrast and sign of hope comes from the governorate of Al Manufiyya, which is north of Cairo. There, Muslims are helping the Copts build a new church dedicated to the Virgin Mary, according to the Catholic news outlet Agenzia Fides. Coptic Orthodox Bishop Benyamin appealed to local Muslims to contribute to the project, and the response was immediate, officials said.

   ·A report by Human Rights Watch Egypt: Mass Attacks on Churches – Christians Say Pleas for Protection Fell Largely on Deaf Ears, dated 21 August 2013[15].

   ·A letter of support by the applicant's employer, dated 16 September 2015.

   ·A letter from Senior Pastor and Chairman of the Board of the [applicant’s church] dated [in] September 2015 who writes in support of the applicant.

   ·A letter from [Mr A] or [College 1], dated [in] August 2014 who confirms that the applicant is a former student and graduated in [year]. He confirms that the applicant was an active member of the [College 1] Ministry Team, a group of volunteer students and staff allocated the task of visiting churches in Upper Egypt to hold religious programs and health lectures to needy people. He writes that the applicant was also responsible for the collection of donation to finance the team.

   [15] information

5. The Tribunal has considered the country information regarding Coptic Christians and notes that they comprise about ten percent of the Egyptian population and number about eight million. Christianity is a recognised religion in Egypt and the Coptic Orthodox church is the largest denomination[16]. The Coptic community is politically and socio-economically diverse and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has reported that day-to-day life in Egypt is ‘not overly affected by sectarian differences’; and that whilst there has been harassment and intimidation of Christians by conservative Muslims, the vast majority of Christians in Egypt do not face violence in their daily lives[17]. The UK Border Agency has also reported that, whilst there are repeated instances of sectarian violence, Christians in Egypt are not in general at risk of persecution or ill treatment[18].

   [16] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2014, Country Information Report Egypt, 28 January

   [17] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January

   [18] UK Border Agency, 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June

6. However, the Tribunal notes the country information that there has been an increase in sectarian violence in Egypt in recent years which has coincided with increased Islamist sentiment (especially in poor and rural communities). Islamist groups were particularly empowered after the fall of the Mubarak government and the election of the Muslim Brotherhood backed President Morsi. There was then a significant increase in sectarian violence targeting Coptic Christians in July and August 2013 coinciding with the ousting of Morsi on 3 July 2013[19]. This violence was reportedly a backlash by pro-Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood supporters because of widespread Coptic participation in the anti Morsi protests[20] and perceived Coptic support for Morsi’s removal[21]. The interim government cracked down on Islamists however, jailing thousands on Muslim Brotherhood supporters. DFAT has reported that the situation has calmed since August 2013 but cautions that ‘potential exists for localised sectarian clashes and violence’[22]. Other reports also indicate that the number of attacks against Copts has ‘subsided’[23] from the ‘unprecedented’[24] volume of attacks in July and August 2013. Sectarian tensions between Christians and Muslims remain however[25] and incidents of violence occurred during 2014[26].

   [19] Freedom House 2014, Freedom in the World – Egypt, 23 January; Human Rights Watch 2014, World Report 2014 – Egypt, 21 January; Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October; Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 2013, Unprecedented spike in scale of sectarian violence and reprisals against Copts, 25 August; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January

   [20] Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 2013, Unprecedented spike in scale of sectarian violence and reprisals against Copts, 25 August

   [21] Freedom House 2014, Freedom in the World – Egypt, 23 January; Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October; Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 2013, Unprecedented spike in scale of sectarian violence and reprisals against Copts, 25 August; Hendawi, H 2013, ‘For Christians, disappointment and fears replace dreams of equality in post-Morsi Egypt’, Associated Press, 16 November, Montreal Gazette

   [22] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt, 28

   January

   [23] US Bureau of Diplomatic Security 2014, Egypt 2014 Crime and Safety Report, 18 March

   [24] Human Rights Watch 2014, World Report 2014 – Egypt, 21 January; Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October

   [25] Kirkpatrick, D 2014, ‘Vow to Freedom of Religion Goes Unkept in Egypt’, New York Times, 25 April Saleh, S 2014, ‘Egypt’s Minya Province flashpoint for Muslim-Christian Violence’, Al Monitor, 25 April; Mikhail, A 2014, Church Shells and Empty Promises, 30 September, Atlantic Council

   [26] US Bureau of Diplomatic Security 2014, Egypt 2014 Crime and Safety Report, 18 March Human Rights Watch 2015, World Report 2015 – Egypt, 29 January

1. Salafi groups have become more prominent in Egypt since the revolution[27]. Salafis generally believe that the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed’s practices (hadith) are the ultimate religious authority in Islam, rather than the subsequent commentaries produced by Islamic scholars[28]. Salafism seeks to restore Islamic faith and practice to that which existed at the time of the Prophet Mohammed and the early generations of his followers (known as Salaf, or forefathers)[29] and Salafis basically maintain that the only valid system of rule for Muslims is based on Sharia law[30].

   [27] Bakr, A, 2012, ‘Egypt’s Salafists: A closer look’, Ahram Online, 15 October

   [28] Blanchard, CM 2008, The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya, CRS Report for Congress, 24 January

   [29] Brown, J 2011, Salafis and Sufis in Egypt, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3 December

   [30] Ibid

2. Salafis have been accused of stirring anti-Christian sentiment in Egypt[31] and of being involved in sectarian incidents and attacks in which they have threatened, harassed and assaulted Christians[32]. Salafi clerics have reportedly described Jews and Christians as infidels and declared that “an unbeliever has no mandate over a Muslim”[33]. However, Salafi leaders have also voiced strong opposition to religious violence.

   [31] Husain, E 2011, ‘Husain: The rise of intolerant Salafists in Egypt’, CNN, 16 November

   [32] Saleh, Y 2012, ‘In Egypt streets, Islamists throw weight around’, Reuters, 7 November ‘Women assault, cut hair of Christian woman on metro’ 2012, Egypt Independent, 11 November ‘Egypt Salafists ordered off Coptic church land: report’ 2012, Agence France-Presse, 8 November, Google news

   [33] Ibid

3. Proselytising is not illegal in Egypt however the government does impose legal penalties on activities related to proselytising including “disrupting social cohesion[34]. DFAT reported in 2014 that “most Christians in Egypt do not attempt to proselytise. Any attempt to do so would likely be resisted – in rural and more conservative areas, perhaps violently”[35].

   [34] United States Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report 2013 – Egypt

   [35] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January

4. Articles 98(f), 160 and 161 of the Egyptian Criminal Code (Law 56-1937) prohibit citizens from ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions or inciting sectarian strife. The law applies to all Egyptians and all recognised religions, but in practice disproportionately affects individuals accused of defaming Islam. The Tribunal also notes DFAT’s latest country information report which indicates that since the July 2013 military intervention, the Sisi government has continued to enforce and to even step up measures to counter atheism, blasphemy and dissent. The report also notes that in the Egyptian judicial system, members of the public can make accusations about other people directly to authorities and DFAT assesses there has been a rise in accusations of defamation of religion since 2011, partly owing to the salience of religious issues in politics and public life during the Morsi government and afterwards. Most cases have arisen in Upper Egypt. Credible human rights sources have told DFAT that those accused of blasphemy rarely have an adequate right of defence and are generally convicted. Penalties include fines and imprisonment ranging from six months to five years[36].

   [36] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2015, Country Information Report Egypt, 24 November

5. The Tribunal notes the Egyptian National Police are responsible for law enforcement nationwide and various sources, including DFAT[37] indicate that police investigative skills remain poor and they suffer from shortfalls in training and equipment. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the security situation has reportedly changed somewhat since 2013, and that police in urban areas are likely to provide more effective protection, DFAT nevertheless notes that the level of police presence in rural areas is generally less than in the cities and as a consequence Coptic Christians are less safe in these areas. Whereas DFAT has assessed that under the Sisi government, the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsible to Coptic grievances, society discrimination may continue to impact on the level of protection offered to Coptic Christians by individual security official.

   [37] United States Department of State, 2013, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Egypt, 27 February 2014; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Report, 2015, Country Information Report Egypt, 24 November

6. The Tribunal also notes a report by the Unites States Department of State’s report in 2013 that there were credible reports that security forced failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities. Further, the UK Home Office’s report, Country information Guidance, Egypt: Christians, also notes “In MS (paragraph 151(1)) the Upper Tribunal found that there was inadequate state protection for Coptic Christians”[38] Other human rights commentators such as the Minority Rights Group and Human Rights Watch also agree that the Egyptian security forces have failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Coptic Christians in recent years[39].

   [38] UK Home Office Country Information Guidance 2014 – Egypt: Christians, 14 July

   [39] Minority Rights Group International 2014; Human Rights Watch 2015, World Report 2015 – Egypt, 29 January

   Findings and reasons

7. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is devout and genuinely believes he has a mission to promote Christianity and that he has strong views about protecting and promoting Christianity and the rights of Christians in Egypt. The Tribunal also accepts that he has engaged in both religious discussions and evangelism in Egypt in the past in the course of promoting and protecting his Christian religious beliefs. The Tribunal did not consider his past profile placed him at a risk of harm of itself. He has also provided evidence of comments posted on-line in 2011 during the political turmoil in Egypt.

8. The Tribunal had some concerns about the applicant's claims in relation to the events of 2013 and has considered the applicant's evidence in relation to his having been attacked. The Tribunal discussed the applicant's claims in some detail and found him to be quite straightforward about his claims, including the threat he received and the attack against him. He was initially surprised that people had known of his on-line activities but in the end was not surprised that he was attacked for them. The Tribunal accepts that in the applicant's home town he is a known Christian and comes from a Christian family and given the country information that supports his evidence that in recent years there have been an increase in attacks on Christians and in sectarian violence, particularly in Upper Egypt, on balance the Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant had been attacked even though there were some inconsistencies as noted by the delegate, however the Tribunal accepts that he was injured and photographic evidence was provided about this. While the Tribunal considers the applicant's evidence may have been embellished in relation to the attack, overall the country information supports his claim that he was attacked because he is a Christian. This was consistent in the Tribunal’s view with the sequence of events regarding his return to Egypt in 2013 to see his mother, the attack in July 2013 when the political and religious climate in Egypt was particularly volatile, his return to Australia and his subsequent application for the protection visa.

9. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s beliefs are such, and in view of his religious education and former religious activities with the church that he will be compelled to talk about, promote and defend Christianity in Egypt and that he will be perceived to be a proselyting Christian and there is a real chance he may face the consequences of this. The Tribunal has had regard to the country information, above including the DFAT country reports which indicate that, in general, Coptic Christians are not subject to persecution in Egypt, however recent country information shows that there have been increasing attacks against Christians in Egypt, particularly in areas outside major cities. Further, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s preparedness to speak out and defend his religion, having previously posted comments on the internet and having been attacked for these when he returned to Egypt in 2013 gives rise to a particular profile which will attract harm primarily from conservative or extremist Muslims or Muslim groups in Egypt. The Tribunal accepts that the harm may amount to serious harm in the form of physical assault or other violence and that the chance of this harm arising is more than remote. The Tribunal is satisfied that the essential and significant reason for the harm is the applicant’s religion and his belief that Christians are entitled to greater rights in Egypt.

10. The Tribunal is satisfied that effective state protection will not be available to the applicant. DFAT has noted that the Egyptian state has the capacity and willingness to protect Copts and generally does so however response times and rates by security forces are not uniform and can be delayed[40]. Other agencies (including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United States Department of State and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom) have described the security forces as failing to protect Copts[41]. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s religious views and expression by way of proselytising are likely to make him a target for conservative and extremist Muslims and is satisfied that the Egyptian state will not be able to provide adequate protection from such violence. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant cannot be expected to cease involvement in his religious belief or practices in order to avoid persecution. The Tribunal has also considered the country information in relation to the laws relating to blasphemy and proselytising and that these apply to the whole country and the applicant will encounter similar difficulties he has encountered in his home town and he faces a real chance of being seriously harmed by Islamists for expressing his religious beliefs wherever he resides in Egypt. Despite there having been signs of a recently improved political environment in Cairo and Alexandria for Coptic Christians, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on balance that the applicant with his religious profile can avail himself of state protection against harm from non-state actors in such circumstances.

    [40] Ibid

    [41] Human Rights Watch 2015, World Report 2015 – Egypt, 29 January; US Department of State 2014, Egypt 2013 International Religious Freedom Report; United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2014, Annual Report 2014 – Countries of Particular Concern: Egypt, 30 April; Amnesty International 2014, Egypt: Key Human Rights Concerns ahead of Presidential Elections, 23 May

11. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

    DECISION

12. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

    Sophia Panagiotidis
    Member