1414478 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3926

1414478 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3926 (17 December 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1414478

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Linda Symons

DATE:17 December 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 17 December 2015 at 4:01pm

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, arrived in Australia [in] February 2014 as the holder of a [temporary] visa which was valid until [February] 2014. [In] February 2014, he was granted a Bridging visa in association with his application for a Protection visa.

3. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for a Protection visa [in] February 2014 and the Department refused to grant the visa [in] August 2014.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 July 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

6. The issues that arise on review are whether Australia has protection obligations to the applicant under the Refugees Convention or under the complementary protection criterion.

   RELEVANT LAW

7. 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.

   Refugee criterion

8. 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).

   Complementary protection criterion

9. 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’).

   Section 499 Ministerial Direction

10. 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.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

11. The applicant’s claims in his visa application filed [in] February 2014 are summarised as follows:

    ·His claims under the Refugees Convention are based on the grounds of actual and implied political opinion and under complementary protection.

    ·He is a Sunni Muslim and a practising member of his faith.

    ·His occupation is [occupation]. He came to Australia [in] February 2014 on a temporary [visa] and did not return to Egypt.

    ·He undertook a [tertiary course] between October 2001 and August 2004. Between August 2004 and October 2010 he worked [in] a family run [business] as [occupation].  He undertook compulsory military service between 2007 and 2009. After this he worked as [occupation].

    ·He joined the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) during the Parliamentary elections in 2005. He has continued to be a member of the [Location 1] MB branch since then. Since 2005, he has attended meetings, distributed party materials, encouraged the recruitment of new members and undertaken a wide range of social activities.

    ·After President Morsi was ousted in July 2013, he participated in about 5 political rallies including rallies at Cairo, [Location 2] and [Location 1]. During these rallies protestors were attacked by security forces resulting in deaths and serious injuries to thousands. He only sustained superficial [injuries] during the [Location 2] protest which required treatment at a local hospital. He managed to escape arrest or serious injuries during all 5 protests he participated in. Four of his friends who attended the rallies were killed by security forces at the [Location 3] protest.

    ·He fears that if he returns to Egypt he will be detained under the new anti-terrorism laws on the basis of his membership of the MB.

    ·He is a reservist in the military and is liable to be called up for military duty until [2018]. In the current security situation it is highly likely that he would be called up to undertake reservist duties.

    ·He is not prepared to undertake military service on the basis of his political views and support for the MB. He fears that if he is called up for military service he would be detained and subjected to disproportionate, significant or serious mistreatment on the basis of his political objections to military service.

    ·He fears that as an active member of the MB he may be subjected to serious or significant harm at the hands of individuals who support the military or the current governing administration.

    ·He fears that he would be denied effective protection when faced with real threats to his safety by private individuals or groups.

12. The applicant provided the Department with copies of his passport, 2013 membership card for the Freedom and Justice Party, a Certificate of completion of military service dated [in] 2009 and country information on members of the MB in Egypt.

13. The applicant attended an interview with the Department [in] July 2014. During that interview, he re-iterated and expanded on his claims. He made the following new claims:

    ·He was in fear for his life since [June] 2013.

    ·He was attacked in July 2013 and verbally abused by the general public.

    ·The Police went to his home in August 2013 looking for him.

    ·The military had sent a letter requiring him to report for service.

14. Following the interview, the applicant provided the Department with an undated written statement and a Conscription Summons dated from [April] 2014 to [May] 2014. In his undated statement, the applicant claimed the following:

    ·He was humiliated, beaten and insulted by some of Sisi’s supporters after the military coup in July. This caused him emotional problems.

    ·The Police chased him in August because he is a member of the MB. Because of this he had to flee outside his house and country.

    ·He came to Australia with a [professional group]. After he came here he was issued with a warrant to attend the army. How can he do that when he is against the army, the military coup and is a member of the MB?

    ·He was present at [Location 3] when his 4 friends and thousands of others were killed. He was beaten and had to go to hospital after that.

    ·If he returns to the army, he would have to obey orders and kill innocent members of the MB or not obey orders and be killed by the army.

    ·He seeks the protection of humanity. He still suffers from psychological problems because of the torture he was subjected to in Egypt. During his interview, he was scared, disturbed and terrified and got his dates mixed up.

    ·His family informed him after the interview that the army had sent him a warrant to attend and if he did not attend he would be put on military trial and sentenced to a minimum of 5 years.

15. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] August 2014. Following the hearing, he provided to the Tribunal documents titled Certificate of Completing Military Service, a document from the Administration of Military Police to the Office of Recruitment and Mobilization dated [in] 2011 and an undated Recalling Order.

    Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the Refugees     Convention?   

16. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Egypt based on his passport which is before the Tribunal and will assess his claims on this basis. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.

17. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his family, his reasons for leaving Egypt and why he fears returning to Egypt. The Tribunal did not find his evidence to be convincing or persuasive. There were a number of inconsistencies in his evidence and between his evidence and the country information. Some aspects of his evidence were vague and lacking in detail. He made new claims throughout the process of his visa application. The Tribunal has serious concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims for the following reasons.

    Muslim Brotherhood

18. In his visa application, the applicant claimed that he became a member of the MB in 2005 and continued to be a member of the [Location 1] MB branch since then. He has made a number of claims that flow from his membership of the MB. During the hearing, the Tribunal asked him a number of questions about his membership of the MB.

19. The applicant gave evidence that he became a member of the MB in 2005 when he was [a specified age] years old or [a similar age]. He stated that none of his family members were members of the MB. When asked about the hierarchy of membership in the MB, he stated that there were 10 members with a secretary, general secretary and director. When asked when the MB was formed, he stated that it was formed in the 1960s. When asked who formed the MB, he stated Sheik Tah Tawi. When asked to explain the structure of the MB, he stated that it was formed through members and he was the member in charge of his village. He stated that he spread the ideology of the MB, distributed party materials, attended meetings, distributed their programmes, and distributed funds to the poor and charities.

20. The applicant stated that he attended weekly or fortnightly meetings at the [Location 1] office of the MB and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). He stated that when he started doing this work in 2005 it was called the FJP. When asked what type of party materials he distributed, he stated that he distributed money and during Ramadan he distributed food and drinks to the poor. He stated that he then spread their ideology to seek freedom and ask for social justice in the country.

21. The applicant’s evidence in relation to when the MB was formed,  who formed the MB, the hierarchy of membership in the MB and the structure of the MB are not consistent with the information on Ikhwanweb, the official English website for the Muslim Brotherhood.[1] The FJP, the political arm of the MB, was formed in 2011.[2] This is not consistent with the applicant’s claim that it was called the FJP from the time he started his work for the MB in 2005. If the applicant has been a member of the MB since 2005 and was in charge of the branch in his village, the Tribunal would expect the applicant to know this information. His lack of knowledge about this information raises concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims in relation to his membership of the MB and the FJP.

    [1] >

    The applicant gave evidence that the FJP, the political arm of the MB, was established in 1967 but he was not sure of the year. He stated that he became a member of the FJP in 2005. He stated that his membership was valid for 3 years. He stated that he renewed his membership every 3 years. He has provided the Department with a copy of an English translation of his Freedom and Justice Party Membership card 2013. It indicates that it expires [in] December 2013. As the FJP was established in 2011[3], the applicant could not have become a member of the FJP in 2005. If the FJP was established in 2011, then the applicant could not have renewed his membership of the FJP every 3 years since 2005.

    [3] Ibid.

22. If the FJP was established in 2011 and applicant’s membership was valid for 3 years, then the earliest date on which his membership of the FJP could expire is 2014. This is not consistent with his Freedom and Justice Party Membership card which expires [in] December 2013. Further, the Freedom and Justice Party Membership card that the applicant provided the Department is titled ‘Freedom and Justice Party Membership Card 2013’. If this card is valid for 2013 and expires [in] December 2013, this is not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that his membership was valid for 3 years.

23. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his application for a Protection visa filed [in] February 2014 was prepared by his solicitor on his instructions. He stated that the instructions he provided his solicitor were true and correct and he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. Despite this evidence, during his interview with the Department [in] July 2014 he made new claims to the effect that he feared for his life since [June] 2013, was attacked in July 2013 and verbally abused by the general public and the Police went to his home in August 2013 looking for him.

24. The Tribunal is of the view that these are not matters the applicant would have overlooked or forgotten. He was aware of this at the time his visa application was prepared. It is directly relevant to his claims for protection and why he fears returning to Egypt. He was represented by a solicitor (migration agent) when his application for a Protection visa was prepared. His failure to mention these new claims in his visa application raise concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of these claims.

25. The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] August 2014. It indicates that during his interview with the Department [in] July 2014, he stated that he was an active member of the MB but was not a leader. This is inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he was the MB member in charge in his village. The Department’s Decision Record indicates that during his interview [in] July 2014 the applicant claimed, for the first time, that he was being investigated by the authorities and the Police went to his house in August 2013. During the hearing, the applicant claimed that the Police went to his house twice; once on [in] July 2013 and once in August 2013. These inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence and this further new claim raise concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of these claims.

26. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. His visa application indicates that he resided at the same address in Egypt from January 2004 to February 2014. He arrived in Australia [in] February 2014. During the hearing, he gave evidence that he went to a friend’s house for 2 weeks in August 2013. If the applicant was being investigated by the authorities and the Police went to his house twice, in July 2013 and August 2013, looking for him, it is implausible that they did not apprehend him before he left Egypt in February 2014 when he continued to reside at the same address. This raises further concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of these claims.

27. The Department’s Decision Record indicates that during his interview [in] July 2014 the applicant was asked questions about significant events that happened in Egypt during 2013 in relation to the MB and in particular he was asked about the significant event in December 2013. The applicant was unable to respond to the question about the significant event in December 2013 in relation to the MB. The country information indicates that the MB was declared to be a terrorist organization in December 2013[4]. During the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant when the MB was declared to be a terrorist organization. He gave a long, rambling and non-responsive answer. When asked again, he stated that it was after he arrived in Australia and he read it in the news.

    [4] Egypt’s military-backed government declares Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, Washington Post, 25 December 2013. (

28. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] February 2014. He was therefore in Egypt in December 2013 when the MB was declared to be a terrorist organization. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant was a member of the MB he would be aware of when the MB was declared to be a terrorist organization particularly as the Egyptian authorities thereafter cracked down on the MB leadership and members.[5] This lack of knowledge raises further concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.

    [5] DFAT Country Information Report on Egypt, 24 November 2015.

29. The Department’s Decision Record indicates that during his interview [in] July 2014 the applicant made a new claim that he was attacked in July 2013 and verbally abused by the general public. In an undated written statement provided to the Department following the interview [in] July 2014, he claimed that he was humiliated, beaten and insulted by some of President Sisi’s supporters after the military coup in July. During the course of the hearing, he claimed that he was subjected to many beatings and insults to the extent that he had to run away from his town and go to his friends’ houses in other areas. He stated that everyone in his area knew that he belonged to the MB. He stated that when he was walking down the street people who supported President Sisi would threaten to wipe him off the face of the earth and he was beaten up 5 times. He then made a further new claim that the new government threatened to kill him, wipe him out and not be bothered by the MB anymore.  

30. The applicant’s claim that he had to run away from his town and go to his friends’ houses in other areas is inconsistent with his visa application which indicates that he resided at the same address in Egypt from January 2004 to February 2014. He left Egypt in February 2014 to travel to Australia. His evidence to the Tribunal is that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. This inconsistency in his evidence raises further concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of these claims.

1. During the hearing, the Tribunal raised with the applicant its concerns in relation to his poor knowledge of the MB which was not consistent with his claims that he had been a member of the MB since 2005 and whether in fact he was a member of the MB. He responded that he did not memorize dates. He stated that he looked after things. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. The applicant is an educated man. His evidence is that he has a [tertiary qualification] from Egypt. The Tribunal is of the view that if he was a member of the MB since 2005, attended meetings, spread the ideology of the MB, recruited new members, was involved in charity work and was in charge of the MB in his village he would have a better knowledge of the MB than he does.

2. During the hearing, the Tribunal raised with the applicant its concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. He responded that he swore on the Quran to tell the truth, he is making an oath while fasting and cannot lie. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information on Egypt in relation to obtaining fraudulent documents in Egypt and its concerns in relation to the authenticity of some of the documents he provided to the Department including his Membership card for the Freedom and Justice Party. He responded that he swears that every single document he submitted is true.

3. In his undated Statement provided to the Department after the interview [in] July 2014, the applicant claimed that he still suffers from psychological problems because of the torture he was subjected to in Egypt. He claimed that during his interview, he was scared, disturbed and terrified and got his dates mixed up. He has not provided the Department or the Tribunal with any evidence in relation to his mental health. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant suffers from any psychological problems. The Tribunal accepts that he may have been scared during his interview with the Department [in] July 2014 and nervous or anxious during the hearing before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this explains the problems with his evidence.

   Findings

4. Having considered the applicant’s claims and the evidence, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is not a witness of truth and that he fabricated his material claims. The Tribunal is of the view that he kept manufacturing new claims throughout the process of his visa application in an attempt to enhance his prospects of obtaining a Protection visa. The Tribunal is of the view that he was prepared to say anything to obtain a Protection visa without any regard for the truth. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a credible witness.

5. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant ever was or is a supporter or member of the MB or the FJP. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that including that he will be detained under the new anti-terrorism laws on the basis of his membership of the MB. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s Membership card for the FJP is an authentic document. The Tribunal does not accept that he participated in any political rallies in Egypt. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that. The Tribunal does not accept that he has any particular political views or opinions. The Tribunal does not accept that he is of adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities, supporters of President Sisi or anyone else.

6. Having considered the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant would be at risk of persecution on the grounds of actual or imputed political opinion, actual or imputed religion, membership of a particular social group or any other Refugee Convention reason if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

   Compulsory military service

7. In his visa application, the applicant claimed that he is a reservist in the military and is liable to be called up for military duty until [2018]. He claimed that in the current security situation it is highly likely that he would be called up to undertake reservist duties. He claimed that he is not prepared to undertake military service on the basis of his political views and support for the MB. He claimed that he fears that if he is called up for military service he would be detained and subjected to disproportionate, significant or serious mistreatment on the basis of his political objections to military service.

8. The applicant has provided to the Department and the Tribunal a document titled Certificate of Completion of Military Service. It indicates that he completed his military service [in] 2009, was transferred to the Reserves and his service in the Reserves expires [in] 2018. The country information indicates that military service is compulsory for males aged between 18 to 30 years in Egypt, with a service obligation of between 12 to 36 months followed by a 9 year reserve obligation.[6] 

   [6] RRT Research Response, Egypt. EGY35028, 18 June 2009.

9. During his interview with the Department [in] July 2014, the applicant claimed for the first time that the military had sent a letter requiring him to report for service. Following his interview with the Department [in] July 2014, the applicant provided the Department with a document titled Conscription Summons and an undated written Statement in which he claimed that if he returns to the army he would have to obey orders and kill innocent members of the MB or not obey orders and be killed by the army. He also claimed for the first time that his family informed him after the interview with the Department [in] July 2014 that the army had sent him a warrant to attend and if he did not attend he would be put on military trial and sentenced to a minimum of 5 years.

10. The Conscription Summons provided by the applicant to the Department after his interview [in] July 2014 states ‘Date of Summons: from [a date in April] 2014 until [a date in May] 2014’. The Tribunal finds it implausible that a document, particularly an official document issued by the government of Egypt, would not be issued on a specific date but rather on a range of dates.

11. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that since coming to Australia he has maintained contact with his family in Egypt every week to 2 weeks. He also claimed that his family informed him after the interview with the Department [in] July 2014 that the army had sent him a warrant to attend and if he did not attend he would be put on military trial and sentenced to a minimum of 5 years. If the Summons was issued between [April] 2014 and [May] 2014 and the applicant was in contact with his family every week or every fortnight, it is implausible that his family did not inform him of the Summons until after his interview with the Department [in] July 2014. The Tribunal also discussed with him the country information referred to below.

12. In view of the above, the Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant its concerns in relation to the authenticity of the Summons. He responded that the dates [date] April 2014 to [date] May 2014 is the period he is required to spend in the army. Following the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a document titled ‘Recalling Order’. It contains the same information as the Summons he provided to the Department except that instead of ‘Date of Summons’ it states ‘Recall Date’. The Tribunal accepts that it is possible that a mistake was made in the English translation of the Summons. However, the document titled ‘Recalling Order’ raises further concerns for the Tribunal and does not alleviate its concerns in relation to the authenticity of the Summons/ Recalling Order. 

13. If the dates [date] April 2014 to [date] May 2014 were the dates that the applicant was required to serve in the army, then the Summons/Recalling Order is undated. The Tribunal finds it implausible that an official document issued by the government of Egypt would be undated. Further, if the dates [date] April 2014 to [date] May 2014 were the dates that the applicant was required to serve in the army, then it must have been issued prior to those dates. This makes it more implausible that the applicant’s family did not inform him of the Summons/Recalling Order until after his interview with the Department [in] July 2014.

14. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed his military service with the applicant. He stated that he completed 2 years of compulsory military service in 2009. When asked why he thought he would have a problem serving in the army now if he had already served in the army in the past, he responded that his mother told him there is a letter for him from the military service. He stated that he is in the Reserves until 2018 and can be called up during times of emergency. He then made a new claim that he has already been summoned once in 2010 and served [number] days. He stated that he has now received another Summons. He stated that if he returns to Egypt he will be arrested or killed because he is a member of the MB and it has now been declared to be a terrorist group. He stated that members of the military are being made to beat and kill members of the MB and questioned whether he was supposed to kill his friends. He stated that he will not be left alone from the minute he arrives in Egypt.

15. Following the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a document from the Administration of Military Police to the Office of Recruitment and Mobilization dated [in] March 2011. It indicates that the applicant was required to present himself to the Office of Recruitment and Mobilization on [that day in] March 2011. The Tribunal finds it implausible that this document was issued on the same date that the applicant was required to present himself. The date of this document is also inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence that he was summoned in 2010 and served [number] days. These issues raise concerns in relation to the credibility of this claim and the authenticity of this document.

16. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the following country information: Egypt has 35,305381 men fit for military service and each year 1,532052 men reach military age. There are 468,500 active frontline military personnel in Egypt. There are 800,000 active reserve personnel. Often men are given exemptions from compulsory military service because the numbers are too large.[7] The Tribunal noted that in these circumstances it is highly unlikely that reservists will be called back into active duty. The Tribunal raised as an issue his claim that he had received a Summons to return to active duty. He responded that people who get exemptions have medical problems. He stated that his Certificate from the army indicates that he is in the Reserves. He stated that he has served as a reservist previously and has been summoned again. 

    Findings

    [7] Egypt – Military strength, Internal instability continues to plague Egypt while it remains committed to fighting extremism within its borders, 4 January 2015. (http:>

    Having considered the applicant’s claims and the evidence, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is not a witness of truth and that he fabricated his material claims. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a credible witness.

17. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant undertook compulsory military service in Egypt which he completed in 2009. The Tribunal accepts that he is in the Reserves until [2018]. The Tribunal does not accept that he was recalled from the Reserves into active service in 2010, or, alternatively in 2011. The Tribunal does not accept that he has again been called into active service from [Apri]l 2014 to [May] 2014. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Conscription Summons, the document from the Administration of Military Police to the Office of Recruitment and Mobilization dated [in] March 2011 and the undated Recalling Order are authentic documents.

18. In view of the country information referred to above, the Tribunal is of the view that it is unlikely that the applicant will be recalled into active service in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, in the event that the Tribunal is wrong, and in view of the above findings the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is not prepared to undertake military service because of his political views and support of the MB or the FJP. The Tribunal does not accept that he will be ordered to kill innocent members of the MB or that he will be killed by the military if he does not obey orders.

19. The Tribunal does not accept that if he is called up for military service the applicant would be detained and subjected to disproportionate, significant or serious mistreatment on the basis of his political objections to military service. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would be at risk of persecution for any of these reasons if he is recalled into active duty.

    Overall findings

20. In view of the above findings, and in light of the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant is not a credible witness, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of Refugee Convention related persecution for any of the reasons put forward by him.

21. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant would be at risk of persecution on the grounds of actual or imputed political opinion, actual or imputed religion, membership of a particular social group or any other Refugee Convention reason if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugee Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a).  

    Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable   consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that he will        suffer significant harm

22. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims under complementary protection. 

23. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons put forward by him. 

24. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied, for the reasons given above, that the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.    

25. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa). 

    CONCLUSION

26. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa).

27. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

28. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    Linda Symons

    
             

    Member