1416067 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3405

1416067 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3405 (21 September 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1416067

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER: the  Antoinette Younes

DATE:21 September 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 21 September 2015 at 3:15pm

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 applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants who claim to be citizens of Egypt, applied for the visas [in] September 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] September 2014.

3. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 26 August 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 applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

   THE LAW

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. 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’).

8. 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.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. In the application for a protection visa, the first-named applicant (the applicant) made the following claims:

   a.He left Egypt because he, his wife and daughter were persecuted and attacked. He has experienced harm on many occasions and in different ways. He was attacked by people at work because they have called him for prayers. He was harassed constantly and on one occasion as he could no longer tolerate what was happening, he told his tormentors to leave him alone and that he will never be a Muslim. He was attacked by three of his employees/managers who claimed that he had cursed and hated Islam. They accused him of being evil and a Kaffir. The same people called him asking him about what he had said and he was “put on report pending further investigation” into his behaviour which caused religious rift. His car was broken into because it had a cross on it and was marked Kaffir. He had to call the “shehada” in front of them to “compensate” for his sins. They wanted his photograph but he refused and as a result he went home bloodied again. It seemed to him that he had to either convert to Islam or lose his job.

   b.When he went on worksites, he was ridiculed and he was not allowed to work in certain places because they said he had sullied their place with his presence. He was being harassed again to become a Muslim. He was told that the company was suffering because of him. The constant aggression, insults and barrage made him feel bad.

   c.His wife was harassed and attacked near work. On one occasion on her way to church, she was thrown onto the ground because she was not wearing proper clothing, the hijab. His daughter was almost kidnapped but thankfully she was able to run and good people helped her but her friend was taken and given back to her parents after payment of a ransom. The friend was never the same.

   d.If he were to return to Egypt, he would be killed because of what has happened to him and because he would refuse to do what they want him to do. Being a Catholic is in the minority and even that the Coptic Church does not help. They are banned from many things and they are considered outsiders. He also fiercely his wife who has suffered a lot in the past few months. His greatest fear is for his daughter who is a prime target for kidnapping. He fears that the people who had attacked him know where he lives. They will try to harm him to force him to declare Islam. Christians have been attacked and the churches are being burnt. Sharia law prevails and Christians would continue to be attacked.

   e.He fears that Islamists groups would cause him harm. Thousands of Christians have suffered and they continue to be a target. Egypt would be hell on earth for Christians. The authorities of Egypt would not protect him or his family. Christians are treated differently to Muslims and they are always at the “losing end”. The authorities have not investigated attacks on Christians even though they have known about them and instead the authorities have stood and helped when Islamists attacked the Cathedral where Pope Tawadrous lives. No one has investigated the kidnappings of Christians. There are countless attacks on Christians and the lack of support from the authorities is well-documented. There are laws that assist in the building of mosques but prohibit the building of churches. He fears the authorities as much as he fears Islamists.

10. In support of the application, the applicant provided a number of generic reports of the ill treatment of Christians in Egypt, copies of marriage certificate, letters of support from [Church 1], Patient Assessments for the applicants referring to their claimed persecution, their anxiety and depression, medical report for the applicant referring to his admission [in] April 2013 in relation to a [medical condition].

11. There is in the departmental file a copy of the file relating to the applicant’s request for assistance under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, which was refused in September 2014. Relevantly, there is a copy of a letter from a psychologist referring to the daughter’s mental health including anxiety and adjustment disorder. There are also letters from various family members and friends noting their inability to assist the family financially, including a letter from [Church 1].

12. The Department interviewed the applicant in respect of his protection claims [in] January 2014. The Tribunal has given regard to the applicant’s responses in the course of the interview as summarised in the delegate’s decision record.

    Material provided to the Tribunal

13. On the day of the hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents:

    a.A letter dated [in] August 2015, titled to whom it may concern, from [Church 1], referring to the applicants’ involvement in the church and to the attempted kidnapping on the third named applicant.

    b.Transcript of academic record for the third named applicant, in relation to [a course].

    c.A Fox news report dated 20 June 2014, referring to kidnappings of Egyptian women and their forced conversion to Islam.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

    Country of nationality

14. On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal finds that the applicants are nationals of Egypt. They travelled to Australia as the holders of passports issued by the authorities of Egypt, copies of which they provided with the protection visa application. The applicant’s made no claim to be nationals of any other country.  

15. The Tribunal finds that the claims should be assessed against Egypt for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa). 

    The applicants’ mental health

16. There is evidence before the Tribunal, such as the Patient Assessment reports referring to the applicants suffering from depression and anxiety. The Tribunal is of the view that the reports are brief, are not current (dated February 2013), and do not provide a comprehensive assessment or overview of any clinical conditions suffered by the applicants, the Tribunal accepts that it is plausible that the applicants have suffered from depression and anxiety. For the reasons explained below, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any such clinical conditions adversely impacted on any applicant’s ability to give evidence and put their case in full before the Tribunal.

17. In the course of the hearing, the applicants cried at various stages. The Tribunal is satisfied that their crying was a genuine expression of sadness.  However, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that this was unrelated to the claimed incidents of harm. The applicants made it very clear that they do not want to return to Egypt and the Tribunal understands and acknowledges their sensitivities about potentially having to return, however, it is the Tribunal’s task to determine whether they meet the criteria for the grant of protection visas.

18. In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants had a fair opportunity to fully articulate their claims before the Tribunal.

    Has the applicant suffered any of the claimed harm?

19. In the course of the hearing, the applicant stated that the family came to Australia in June 2013 on visitor visas and initially they were confused and did not know what to do. He stated that subsequent to the interview with the Department, his daughter was very upset at and the doctor told her that she needs to keep herself busy. The Tribunal asked and the applicant confirmed that the daughter is not currently receiving any psychological assistance and that she is trying to apply for jobs and [studying]. He said the family does not have enough money for the daughter to pursue her studies. He stated that he is a [Catholic] and he has practised his faith. The applicant gave evidence that they were granted the visas in February 2013 and departed to Australia in June 2013. He explained that he had a medical procedure which meant that he could not travel for three months (medical evidence provided). He also said that he had to organise a nursing home for his mother.  In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal accepts that the applicants are [Catholics] who practised their faith in Egypt.  The Tribunal is persuaded by the explanations in relation to the delay in departing Egypt and has not used this matter in an adverse manner to the applicants.

20. In relation to the application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that the application was completed by his adviser with whom he communicated in Arabic. He stated that the adviser read the contents out to the applicant prior to him signing the relevant parts of the application. He stated that three days prior to the Departmental interview, his mother died but he did not want to postpone the interview. He confirmed that the contents of the application for a protection visa were correct. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s mother died three days before the interview and that it is natural that he was saddened by her death.  The Tribunal has taken this matter into account when assessing the claims.  However, for the reasons outlined below, the Tribunal does not accept that the mother’s death fully-explains the evidentiary problems.

21. The applicant gave evidence that prior to coming to Australia, the family lived in Cairo where he worked as a [occupation] in a company called [Company 1] from 1986 until 2013 and previously for another company from 1980 to 1986. In relation to [Company 1], he said that the company was a small company with approximately [number] employees. The owner of the company was Muslim and originally from [another country].

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims that he was persecuted and attacked in Egypt and the applicant stated that they were persecuted from early on. Asked how they were persecuted, the applicant stated that [in] December 2012, he had to go to work although it was supposed to be his day off. He said he was told that Christians have too many days off which led to an argument. He was subsequently pushed by three employees but others intervened and he went home. He said at the time he was the only Christian employee. He said he returned to work on [date] December 2012 which was a Sunday. The Tribunal asked him if anything else had happened during that incident and the applicant confirmed that nothing else happened.

23. The applicant discussed another incident which occurred [in] December 2012. He said there was a problem at work for which he was being blamed. He was physically assaulted and his front teeth got broken and started bleeding. He tried to go to his car and no one came to assist him. He was followed and pushed again but on this occasion strangers intervened. He went home in a taxi subsequently. He said one of the people told him that he should join Islam and save himself. He said he stayed at home for a week and considered resigning. His closest colleague told him that he would not win. Two days later, he made a decision not to discuss the incident. The applicant stated that there was an incident that occurred in mid-January 2013. He said there was a problem with a machine that could have been solved easily but he was forced to apologise and later had to resign.

24. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s written claims and asked the applicant why in writing, his claims were essentially general and lacking in important details. The Tribunal noted that in writing, there is no mention of the dates [in] December 2012 or mid- January 2013. The Tribunal asked him why he had not mentioned those dates in writing and the applicant stated that the type of work in which he has been involved did not involve writing and that he does not recall dates. The Tribunal asked him how he was able to be specific and he stated that his wife had a better recollection. The Tribunal further noted that in the decision record provided by the applicant in support of the application for review, he does not appear to have mentioned initially those specific dates in the course of the Departmental interview, although he eventually said December 2012. The applicant stated that his adviser had told him that it would be better if he were able to remember the dates. The Tribunal indicated that it would further consider those explanations but noted that the fact that those dates had not been mentioned previously could raise doubts about the claims. The applicant stated that when he was interviewed by the Department, he was asked to remember the dates but at that time he did not think about dates. 

25. The Tribunal further noted that in the course of the interview with the Department, the applicant appears to have given different dates and number of attacks. The applicant stated that the interviewer did not understand him properly. He said the second incident occurred when he was still at work and had lost two teeth. The Tribunal indicated that it would further consider whether the loss of teeth is due to any of the claimed events. 

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any other incidents. The applicant stated one morning when he was returning home with his wife and daughter, three men in white coats verbally abused them and asked them why they were not wearing the hijab. The Tribunal asked him when that incident occurred and the applicant stated that he cannot recall the exact date but thought that it occurred in mid-January 2013. The Tribunal noted that there is no mention of this incident in the application for a protection visa with which the applicant agreed. He stated that many incidents happen to Christians.

27. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the explanations.  The Tribunal finds it odd that there is no mention of any dates in the application for a protection visa which was lodged at a time when arguably the applicant’s memory would have been clearer and the alleged events would have had a significant impact – as claimed by the applicant.  He sought protection on the basis of ill-treatment, yet he does not mention when those specific events occurred.  In the course of the interview with the Department, it is noted in the decision record that the applicant “struggled to recall the year…”.  The inconsistencies, difficulty in recollection, and lack of mentioning of significant details in the application raise doubts about those claims.

28. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any other incidents of harm that occurred in the 27 years of his employment with [Company 1]. The applicant said that the owner of the business was open-minded and he liked Christians. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claim that he had suffered ongoing harassment at [Company 1] and the applicant stated that the harassment occurred but not from his employer. He said he was harassed by his colleagues. The applicant confirmed that he was referring to the three incidents discussed earlier.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claim that his car had been broken into and the applicant stated that it happened on several occasions the last of which was in 2012. The applicant stated that many things happened to him. The Tribunal asked him about those ‘things’. The applicant stated that at work he was asked to come and pray with Muslims. He said outside the company, they used to say that he is a Christian and he does not know anything. The Tribunal asked the applicant that given his employment with the company for 27 years and his claimed harassment, why he had not left the company. The applicant stated that in the beginning when the owner was alive (died in 2010) he used to tell him not to worry. He said that the owner’s children were extremists.  The Tribunal is not convinced.  The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is prone to exaggeration.  The fact that the applicant worked for the same employer for 27 years raises serious doubts about his claims of harassment and ill-treatment.

29. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the medical reports provided in relation to the three applicants and indicated that the Tribunal would consider the reports carefully. However the Tribunal noted that questions of persecution are matters for the Tribunal to determine. Similarly, the Tribunal referred to the letters of support from various organisations and indicated to the applicant that questions of harm are for the Tribunal to determine.

30. Overall and as discussed above, the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence to be substantially inconsistent with his previous claims, to be vague and general. Whilst it is plausible that subsequent to the refusal, he was advised by his representative to provide specific details about his claims, that reason does not entirely explain the substantial inconsistencies in the information provided by the applicant. In the application for a protection visa, the applicant’s claims were vague and lacked in significant details about when and how those incidents occurred. In the course of the hearing, he gave an impression of having rehearsed all.

1. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that Christians in Egypt can be ill-treated, given the above noted concerns, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has suffered any of the claimed harm. For the stated reasons and in essence, the Tribunal does not accept that there was any incident as claimed [in] December 2012 or mid- January 2013, or that he had to call the “shehada”, or that his car was broken into as claimed, or that he was harassed or insulted at work by his colleagues, or that he was blamed for poor work, or that he felt he had to convert to Islam, or that he was asked to pray with Muslims, or that his broken teeth occurred as a result of any claimed attack, or that he was accused of being evil and Kaffir, or that he was ridiculed, or that he was not allowed to work in certain places, or that he was told that the company was suffering because of him. In essence and for the stated reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has suffered any of the claimed harm.

   The claims in relation to the second name applicant

2. The applicant gave evidence that in January 2013 and whilst his wife was waiting for him in the street, a man grabbed her by the leg and another one abused her and touched her. Subsequently the applicant decided to pick up his wife from work rather than her walking home for about 20 minutes. He said prior to coming to Australia, her colleagues spoke to her about wearing the hijab.

3. The second named applicant gave evidence that life in Egypt is difficult and they all faced persecution at work but they tried to live their lives. She stated that two of her colleagues had asked her to wear the hijab.  She referred to another incident when she was waiting on a footpath and a man came and pinched her on the knee.  The second-named applicant said there was another occasion when she was in a taxi playing Muslim prayers. She said she was dropped at the end of the street and was forced to walk and verbally abused to wear the hijab. She said there was another occasion when she was pushed to the ground whilst she was walking to church.

4. The Tribunal accepts as plausible that in January 2013, a man grabbed the second named applicant by the leg, that he abused her and touched her and that subsequently the applicant decided to pick his wife up from work so she did not have to walk, that two of her colleagues had asked her to wear the hijab, that once whilst she was on a footpath and was pinched, that she was in a taxi on one occasion and Muslim prayers were playing and that on one occasion she was abused for not wearing the hijab. On the basis of the available information, whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that those incidents were unpleasant, the Tribunal is satisfied that none of those incidents amounts to serious or significant harm. Moreover, the Tribunal is satisfied that such incidents reflect the ongoing tensions in Egypt between Muslims and Christians. On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm occurring in the future on this basis.

   The claims in relation to the third named applicant

5. The applicant stated that [in] February 2013, there was a kidnapping attack. He said his daughter was going to church with two of her friends and a minibus stopped. Three men came out and accused them of being infidels and that they should marry them and become Muslims. He said the men tried to grab the girls and took one of them [and] tried to kidnap his daughter and another girl ([Ms A]).  He said the girls got scared and started screaming and a family came to assist them. He said the three men threw acid on his daughter and [Ms A]. The Tribunal noted that in the course of the interview with the Department, the applicant appears to have given a different version of this claimed incident; the Tribunal indicated that he did not say that acid had been thrown on his daughter. The applicant stated that his daughter had acid thrown on her pants whereas [Ms A] had the acid thrown on her face. The Tribunal indicated that the claim in relation to acid being involved was not mentioned in the application for a protection visa, nor was the date mentioned. The applicant responded by saying that upon receipt of the refusal, his adviser suggested that it would be best to remember dates.

6. The Tribunal referred to the document provided by the applicant in relation to his daughter titled patient history, as mentioned in the delegate’s decision record. The Tribunal acknowledged that the document is not intended to be a full account of any incident but it states that the daughter was on a “bus when somebody shot at the bus and some terrorist tried to attack her school since then she started to get dizzy spells”. The applicant stated that this incident refers to another one that occurred in January. He said the school bus had the name of the school displayed which showed that it was a Christian school and that on its way, there was a protest involving the police and the Muslim Brotherhood. He said the school had received threats and there were attacks on Christian schools. He said subsequent to that incident, his daughter panicked and he decided to drive her to and from school. He said his daughter and others had been harassed and were subjected to inappropriate touching. He said his daughter suffered from dizzy spells and the doctor in Egypt told her that there was nothing wrong.  The Tribunal noted that this claim does not appear to have been mentioned in the application for a protection visa or in the course of the interview with the Department. The Tribunal indicated that it would further consider the claim.

7. The second named applicant gave evidence that there was an attempted kidnapping on her daughter [in] February 2013 when she was going to church with two of her friends. She said a minibus came and three men came out and verbally abused the girls who started screaming attracting attention. They tried to grab her daughter and took one of the girls. She said that they threw acid one her daughter (on her pants) and another girl on her face.

8. The third named applicant gave evidence that [in] February 2013 at about 9:30 AM whilst she was going to church with two others, a minibus came and three men came out and started abusing them. She said they threatened to violate them and the girls did not answer back. She said the men grabbed them and when they saw a family walking to the church, the men were startled. They grabbed one of the girls and threw acid at her and another girl. She said she does not know what happened to the girl who was taken by the men. She said she cannot live in Egypt any longer because they cannot go anywhere. She stated that at school, there were two girls who hated Christians and talked to her about Mohammad. She stated that she has been harassed and touched inappropriately whilst walking. She said that she had to wear a jacket and could not wear short sleeves or short skirts.

9. The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicants’ evidence in relation to the claimed incident of February 2013. The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that such a significant incident would not have been raised as claimed in the application for a protection visa. The Tribunal acknowledges that in the statement provided in support of the application, the applicant mentions the attempted kidnapping but there is no mention whatsoever of acid being thrown on anyone. This is a significant aspect of the claim and the fact that it was not mentioned at the outset raises serious doubts about the claim. Moreover in the statement provided in the application for a protection visa, there is no mention of the actual alleged date of February 2013. Furthermore, whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that the medical assessment report is not intended to be a full assessment and a full account of events, the Tribunal finds it odd that the medical assessment provided for the third named applicant makes no mention of acid being thrown on her, or that the incident happened as claimed. Whilst the applicant’s explanation that subsequent to the refusal his representative advised him to mention the dates is reasonable in isolation, the Tribunal is not convinced or persuaded when considering the totality of the evidence.

10. The Tribunal further acknowledges that the three applicants gave evidence about the incident and that the versions were remarkably similar, suggesting a rehearsal of the evidence. The fact that the three applicants gave consistent evidence about this incident would normally be considered to be a favourable aspect of the evidence corroborative of the claim, however, in the circumstances and in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is evidence of rehearsal rather than corroboration; it would not be difficult for the three applicants to have discussed the incident prior to the hearing and reached agreement about aspects of the alleged incident.

11. In light of those concerns and in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal does not accept that in February 2013, the third named applicant was subjected to an attempted  kidnapping, or that acid was thrown on two girls including the third named applicant, or that one of the girls was kidnapped. The Tribunal accepts as plausible the third named applicant’s evidence that there were two girls who hated Christians, that they talked to her about Mohammad, and that she felt harassed, and that on occasions when she was walking, she was touched and felt that she had to wear a jacket and could not wear short sleeves or short skirts. The Tribunal acknowledges that the third named applicant feels that she had to modify her behaviour to avoid harm. The Tribunal is of the view that even if on the family’s return to Egypt, the third named applicant had to dress in a particular way to avoid being touched, the Tribunal is not satisfied that would amount to serious and or significant harm as contemplated by the Act. The Tribunal does not consider wearing a jacket, not wearing short sleeves or shorts to be serious and or significant harm. The Tribunal acknowledges that it would have been unpleasant for the third named applicant to have been subjected to such incidents, however the Tribunal does not accept that any of those incidents amounts to serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act.

    Is there a real risk or a real chance of serious or significant harm occurring?

12. On 25 August 2015, the Tribunal received written submissions from the applicant’s adviser. In summary, the adviser referred to the attacks on the family, the lack of protection by the Egyptian authorities, and the endemic kidnapping of Christian girls in Egypt and their forced conversion to Islam. The adviser referred to a number of articles concerning the situation in Egypt as well as women related attacks.

13. In oral submissions to the Tribunal, the adviser noted that DFAT’s 2014 report is not up to date. He said bombings continue in Cairo and the security promised has not eventuated. He said the authorities in Egypt do not treat all Egyptians equally and that Christians have a sense of abandonment and a genuine fear of harm.

14. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)[1] noting that whilst there are problems for Christians in Egypt, on a day-to-day basis, Christians live in Egypt safely. The applicant stated that he has not worked for two years and he cannot return to Egypt. He said he would not be able to work in Egypt and no one gives work to Christians. He said at his age he would not get any promotions. He said when his daughter’s incident occurred, he went to report to the police but he was told to go home instead. He said the police cannot even protect themselves, that there have been recent bombings, and that Christians are the last ones to be protected in Egypt.

    [1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,  DFAT, Country Report, Egypt January  2014

15. The applicant has worked for many years prior to his arrival in Australia. He worked in Egypt for the same employer for 27 years and previously for another employer. Whilst the Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant may encounter difficulties in finding work (because of his age or any other factor), on the basis of the available information and looking at the applicant’s overall circumstances, that the Tribunal is not satisfied that any such difficulties would be more than he may encounter anywhere, including in Australia. In essence and on the basis of the available information, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would face harm in trying to find employment which would amount to serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act. The Tribunal has not accepted that the incident in relation to the daughter occurred as claimed and consequently the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant reported the incident, or that the police told him to go home.

16. In relation to the applicant’s claims about the general level of security in Egypt and state protection, DFAT assessed the security situation in Egypt to have been fluid since January 2011 with a notable decrease in law and order leading to an increase in crime, violence and kidnappings. The law enforcement authorities continue to have less presence outside of major urban centres, and in all areas of Upper Egypt[2].  Regarding religious issues, DFAT reported “broadly speaking, religious minorities in Egypt face a low level of discrimination via the laws and policies of the state (i.e. ‘Official discrimination’) and medium to high levels prejudice within the community (i.e. ‘societal discrimination’). Societal discrimination can be higher in rural, more conservative or poorer areas. Societal discrimination can and, on occasion, leads to violence. However, on a day-to-day level, the overwhelming majority of adherence to minority religions live without fear of violence. In addition, there are anti- discrimination laws in Egypt, though their enforcement can be constrained”.[3] 

    [2] Ibid, page 5

    [3] Ibid, page 7

17. DFAT reported that there has been an increase in the number of violent incidents involving Christians in recent years. DFAT assessed the increase as being largely due to a long-term trend of increased Islamist sentiment, particularly in poor and rural communities, a deterioration of economic conditions, and a “…..weakening of law and order mechanisms in Egypt….”[4]  DFAT assessed that day-to-day life in Egypt is ‘not overly affected by sectarian differences’ and most Egyptians, particularly those in urban areas, have little regard to each other’s religious identity.  However, DFAT notes that ‘underlying sectarian tensions exist and disputes have been known to turn violent’[5]  A number of reputable sources emphasise that the Egyptian authorities’ failure to prosecute perpetrators of sectarian violence has promoted a climate of impunity.[6] In 2013, incidents of sectarian violence demonstrated ongoing problems with the authorities’ response to sectarian violence.[7]

    [4] Ibid, page 11

    [5] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, pages.4 and 5.

    [6] Human Rights Watch 2013, World Report 2013: Country Summary Egypt, 31 January, p.5; Human Rights Watch 2013, Egypt: Address recurring sectarian violence, 10 April ; United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2013, USCIRF Annual Report 2013 - Countries of particular concern: Egypt, 30 April, p.53, UNHCR Refworld; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2013, DFAT Report No.1490 – Egypt: RRT Information Request: EGY41897, 5 April; ‘Egyptian civilians in crosshairs of Sinai militants’ 2013, IRIN, 11 December

    [7] Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October, p.3; Amnesty International 2013, Egypt: Government must protect Christians from sectarian violence, 20 August; Human Rights Watch 2013, Mass Attacks on Churches, 22 August../../../../Users/PRATMT/AppData/Local/Microsoft/2013/Web/EGY Egypt - Pope Tawadros rebukes Morsi over cathedral clash.doc; Human Rights Watch 2013, Egypt: Address recurring sectarian violence, 10 April Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March

18. The Tribunal accepts that the applicants are Christians but for the stated reasons the Tribunal has not accepted that any of the applicants has suffered harm amounting to serious and or significant harm. Apart from being Christians, the Tribunal is satisfied that none of the applicants has a profile which would mean that there is a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm. On the evidence before it, whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that country information does indicate that Christians in Egypt can suffer discrimination and that protection of the authorities is questionable, the Tribunal is of the view that not every Christian in Egypt is owed protection as defined under the Act. The Tribunal has considered the submissions and country information provided by the representative however on balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that being a Christian without more means that there is a real chance or a real risk of significant or serious harm as contemplated by the Act. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges the incidents of kidnapping of Christian girls and their forced conversion, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk as contemplated by the Act of the third named applicant being kidnapped, or being forced to convert to Islam. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is nothing in the applicants’ profile or circumstances that would suggest that there is a real chance or risk they could face serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act.

19. The Tribunal accepts that generalised insecurity continues to be a significant issue in Egypt.  However, no country is required to offer a guarantee of security to all its citizens. The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicants’ personal circumstances.  The Tribunal has considered the claims independently and cumulatively; for the stated reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution if they returned to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are refugees under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

20. On balance, on the information before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicants’ claims do not give rise to substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that they would suffer significant harm in the form of, arbitrary deprivation of life, or the death penalty being carried out, or torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment. Therefore they do not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

21. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

    Antoinette Younes
    Senior Member