1416127 (Refugee) - [2016] AATA 4369

1416127 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4369 (30 August 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1416127
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt
MEMBER:Sophia Panagiotidis
DATE:30 August 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 30 August 2016 at 10:28am
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

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).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa [in] September 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] September 2014.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 March 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
Background
The applicant was born in Minya, Egypt in [year]. He lived in [another country] from 1987 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2013. He was granted a visa subclass [to] travel to Australia and he arrived [in] June 2013. He participated in a placement at [a] University from [date] June 2013 for [number] weeks. His visa ceased [in] September 2013. He applied for a protection visa [in] September 2013.
His claims as outlined in his application for a protection visa are as follows:
·The applicant claims to be a Coptic Christian. He has stated that although born in Egypt he grew up in [another country] but returned to Egypt in 2006 to study [a tertiary course].
·The applicant has claimed he was assaulted by [number] people in Minya [in] December 2012 while he was leaving a train station. They took his phone, watch and wallet. He reported this to the police who were unable to identify the men responsible.
·The applicant claimed that [in] March 2013 he was visiting a friend at a hospital in [a suburb] and they heard gunshots outside. His [sibling] rang him and warned him of the danger and return home. As he tried to escape many people were running and [number] men following him from the hospital. They hit him with a blunt, thick stick and he fell. Those who helped the applicant told him the men had beards and wore white cloaks. He reported the assault to the police the next day.
·The applicant claims to fear returning to Egypt because he will be subjected to further harm by Islamic groups and because of the spike in Christian persecution, the authorise failed to protect him. The authorities in Egypt are unable to protect him and if he returns, especially after the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and anti-government protests.
·The applicant further claims that he was initially not permitted to study [a tertiary course] without payment of [amount] EGP (approximately [amount].
The applicant has made additional claims during the interview with the delegate [in] June 2014.
· The applicant claims that his [relative] is affiliated with monks at [a] monastery in [town]. If he were to return there to live this would put the applicant in danger with the police because the police have accused the monks of storing weapons and supplying these to Christians. The applicant’s [relative] has been accused of having weapons and has been arrested and taken to jail for three months and his house has been searched many times.
· The applicant also claims that [certain professionals] in [town] are targeted for kidnapping. The applicant is a [occupation] and a Christian and his parents live in [another country] and therefore he is perceived to be from a wealthy family.
The hearing
The applicant confirmed his parents still live in [another country]. His father is [age] and works as an [occupation] in a [firm]. He told the Tribunal that in order to remain in [the other country], a person must have investments or be employed by a [local] employer. His father previously had invested in a small [business] but has sold that and just works for a [firm]. He told the Tribunal that his parents went to [the other country] before he was born for work. He has a [sibling] who is living in [that country] and is working for a [local] company who is sponsoring [sibling]. He has [a sibling] in [the other country] who is still at school. He has [another sibling] who is a university student in Egypt and another who is living in Aswan with [family]. He told the Tribunal that he has no right to return to live in [the other country] indefinitely unless he is sponsored for employment or has investments there.
The applicant confirmed he is a Christian and he was born into a Coptic Christian family. He was not required to do military service in Egypt as he was exempted because of [a physical trait]. He has graduated as a [occupation] and completed three months training in Egypt. He is currently studying towards the Australian [examinations] and for the English language test in order to be able to have his qualifications recognised in Australia. He has no family in Australia.
The applicant was asked why he travelled to Australia. He said he had to leave Egypt. He has experienced discrimination which is widespread all over Egypt against Christians. He experienced discrimination during his [studies] both at university and at [workplaces]. He said that although there are problems in [the other country], he did not feel the same level of discrimination shown towards Christians as he did in Egypt. When he returned to Egypt for his study he was firstly refused a place and was told his grades were not good enough and he would have to do additional studies. He was however offered a place but only if he paid a bribe. There were [other] students who had applied to the same university from [the other country] and who were Muslim and were accepted to study [tertiary course] even though their grades were lower than his. He therefore returned to [the other country] and did the additional study and reapplied for entry into [tertiary course]. He did everything he was told and he was accepted into [a] University. He later transferred to [another] University on the basis of his academic grades. While he was at university he was told to stop wearing a Christian medal. He was told this by one of the lecturers, a [specialist] in front of the whole class. This [specialist] was a Muslim and quite religious. There were only a couple of Christians in his class.
The applicant said he also has a tattoo of a cross on his [body part] which indicates he is Coptic Christian. He has had this for years and it was done when he was young and it is a rite of passage amongst young Christians and very common. The applicant said he had a close Muslim friend at school that saw the tattoo of the cross and asked him about it but after that his friend asked the applicant why he doesn’t want to be a Muslim. He tried to avoid him after that. Before the Morsi government in Egypt he was told by Muslim friends that things would be better when Morsi came to power, but this was not the case. He came to Australia while Morsi was in power because after that there was a big difference in how Christians were treated. The government prevented churches from being built, people destroyed Christian churches and they promoted Islam over everything. There was a lot of anti-Christian sentiment and many people wanted to get rid of Christians from Egypt. Many of his Muslim friends commented he was lucky that they were keeping him alive because Christians do not belong in Egypt.
The applicant was asked about what specific incidents led him to want to leave Egypt. He told the Tribunal that around Christmas 2012 he had travelled to [town] to be with his [relative] and when [he arrived] he waited for the crowd to clear a bit as he does not like being in crowds and he was attacked by [number] people. They told him to turn around and put his hands up. He caught a glimpse of one of the men who was dark and short and was holding a knife. He thinks he was targeted because he is a Christian and looks like a Christian. He was dressed in a way that Muslim men generally don’t dress in that part of Egypt. It is common for men in Upper Egypt to wear cloaks both Christian and Muslims, the difference being Muslim men wear only white cloaks and have beards. Christian men generally don’t have a beard.
The applicant said he and his family are well known in [town]. He is also the first [of certain professional] in the family and the extended family there have boasted of this. Every time he has travelled to [town] his [relative] welcomes him in public as a [certain professional]. He wondered whether the people who robbed him at the station were from his village and may have known about him. His village is [name] with a population of [number] which about half an hour from [town]. His [relative] lives there and is well known. He has a [shop] and is also works in some kind of business to do with [equipment]. It is mainly a rural area with many [farms].
The applicant said his [relative] has had a lot of trouble with the authorities as he is a regular attendee at the local monastery which is close to his home and has been accused of supplying weapons to the monks. He has been arrested many times but the authorities have never been able to prove any of these charges. In 2008 there was a major incident when Muslims attacked the monastery and monks and others were injured. They had done so more than once. The Christians and monks in the area have been accused of stockpiling weapons and money in order to attack Muslims and these are hidden in the monastery. There are many places in Egypt where such stories are told and these stories are spread by extremists. There was an incident three years ago when the Cathedral in Cairo was attacked by Muslims looking for weapons.
The applicant said there was another incident that made him fear remaining in Egypt. He was in [a suburb] [name] as he was meeting a [friend] for his birthday. He had arrived about 9.00 pm. While he was at the [location] his friend and he were discussing some of his [work] and they heard gun shots. His [sibling] who was home and who has [medical] problems, a [certain condition] heard the shots and called the applicant and became worried that he had not returned home. As he got to the entrance of the hospital he saw many people running. Some of the people were holding sticks and knives. He thought he could run to his home as it was close but the moment he stepped out of the hospital he was attacked and someone hit him with a stick. The attacker then turned him over and punched him in the face. Some bystanders helped him and reported the attack to the police. He was taken to the police station and they took him to hospital and then they took him home. He did not know why there were crowds in the street until the delegate told him that the violence that night was due to a dispute between [groups of people]. The applicant said that because he was at a Christian hospital and the workers and patients there were all Christian and the hospital did not allow visitors after 8.00 pm, anyone leaving the hospital after that time would be assumed to be a Christian doctor or nurse. He said the moment he stepped outside the door he heard someone coming after him and he believes that he was targeted because his assailants assumed he was a Christian. The police asked him about the assailants and he told them they wore cloaks and had beards. Others who were there told him the incident had something to do with Gamal Sabar. The next day when he had to see the prosecutor he told him what he had been told that the attack had something to do with Gamal Sabar. The prosecutor told him it was not wise to accuse him. He knows that this man is part of a fundamentalist group in Egypt and is a follower of Hazemoon.
The applicant said that another reason he fears returning to Egypt is because he is afraid of being kidnapped. There have been kidnappings in [town] and those kidnapped have included [professionals]. His [relative] is hated by many Muslims in the area and there are fanatics and in particular one well known fanatic who has his attacked his [relative] His [relative] has also been charged with having weapons in the house by some Muslims who said they had witnessed this. The police who investigated the allegations were corrupt and claimed to have found weapons and his [relative] was jailed for [some] months and then released. He is afraid of the Muslim community in that area. These people may consider that his family has money as they live in [another country] and are able to pay ransom. He said that Christians in Egypt help each other and they are a tight knit community. He is a regular church goer and a known Christian. He is also a [officeholder] in the church. Muslim fundamentalists know this.
The applicant said that since the new government in Egypt there have been many promises made to help keep Christians safe. However the violence against them continues. Christians in Minya were attempting to rebuild a small church which had been damaged but local Muslims prevented this. The local authorities have also denied permission to build the church even though the President has said they would be allowed to do so. The President has promised many things but at the local level there are still many problems and people are prevented from rebuilding churches and are attacked because they are Christian. Their mentality towards Christians has not changed.
The applicant said that [some] months after the attack at the hospital, he was able to come to Australia to attend [professional] training. He took the opportunity to leave Egypt and to be safe. He was also tired of the discrimination in Egypt against Christians.
The Tribunal referred to country information by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in relation to Coptic Christians in Egypt[1]. DFAT advise that notwithstanding the rise in the number of violent incidents (including some high profile attacks), DFAT assesses that day to day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overtly affected by sectarian differences. Most Egyptians, especially those living in cities and urban areas work and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity. However, whenever smaller disputes arise they can adopt a sectarian dimension and infrequently mushroom into community level violence. This happens in poorer urban and rural areas. Spikes in political tension can also occur in times of political tension and coincide with broader political upheavals. The applicant was asked if he had any comment to make regarding this information.
[1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 28 January 2014
The applicant said that the information is not correct. He feels unsafe in Egypt especially in [town]. He is a [professional], a Christian and his family are in [another country]. He is also a [officeholder] in the church. All of these things have to be considered in his case. In other parts of Egypt it is the same for Christians. His [sibling] who lives in Aswan is not able to go out because of harassment and abuse. [Sibling] does not wear [certain garment] and is always being targeted by Muslims. When [sibling] was at [University] [sibling] was attacked physically because [was] not wearing a [certain garment] and therefore not a Muslim. Women who wear the veil are not attacked physically by Muslims in public. [Sibling] did not know [the] assailant and there was nothing [could] do about it. [Spouse] had to buy a car in Aswan in order to get about and to go to church as it is not safe for [sibling] to travel on public transport. The applicant said the police often do nothing if a Christian is attacked. A Christian friend of his was attacked by a number of Muslim men and his friend was arrested and held for a few days even though he was the victim. The police can do that in Egypt. The applicant said he has often been stopped by police to show his identity card. The police have the power to stop and ask for identification when they want and they tend to do this more to non-Muslims.
The Tribunal referred to the DFAT report[2] in relation to state protection and that DFAT assesses that on a day to day basis in urban areas; the state has a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts and generally does so. A Copt facing harassment could go to a local police station in these areas. DFAT has observed that under the current interim government the security services see it in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances although societal discrimination could impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by an individual security official. The applicant was asked for his comment.
[2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 28 January 2014
The applicant said that many police are extremists as are the perpetrators of the violence in Egypt. If he were to make a complaint against a Muslim attacking him, the police would not act. This is not the case with all police but most who take the side of the Muslim against Christians.
The applicant was asked about the practicality or reasonableness of living in another area of Egypt. He said that kidnapping and violence are problems throughout Egypt. He has lived in Cairo and [town] and is easily identified as a Christian. He has a tattoo of a cross on his [body] and does not dress like a Muslim. Extremists and fundamentalists are everywhere and are well connected. He can be targeted because of his profession as well as for being a Christian. He can also be associated with his [relative] who is hated by Muslims in the area. In most villages in Egypt, local mayors have power and they know each other. Information about people is easily obtained by money and corruption using these networks.
The applicant said that being in the [certain] profession itself is not safe in Egypt. There was a case recently where a policeman attacked a [information deleted].
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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.
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).
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.

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’).
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.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Egypt.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Country of reference
The applicant travelled to Australia on an Egyptian passport and arrived [in] June 2013. The applicant has provided the Department with identity documents including a copy of his passport. The applicant provided his passport to the Tribunal who has sighted this and a copy was placed on its file. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is an Egyptian national and has assessed his claims against Egypt as his country of nationality for the purposes of the Convention as well as the receiving country for the purposes of complementary protection.
Based on the evidence presently before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has statutory effective protection in any safe third country (pursuant to subsections 36(3)-(5A) of the Act).
Country information
The following information is included to provide a context for assessing the applicant's claims. Unless otherwise stated it is based on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Egypt and Thematic Report on Egyptian Copts, both issued on 24 November 2015.
Coptic Christians in Egypt and sectarian violence
Coptic Christians comprise some 10 per cent of Egypt's population of 83 million. They are present in most parts of the country and are represented at all levels of society. Copts have access to all levels of education, and are present in most areas of employment. There are prominent and influential Copts in politics, business and the arts. However, Copts have long faced some degree of societal discrimination. Few Copts hold senior positions in institutions such as the military, universities and the public service. There is also sporadic harassment of Christians in some areas, for example targeting women with uncovered hair. Discrimination and prejudice are more of a problem in poorer urban and rural area.
The Egyptian constitution recognises Christianity, along with Islam and Judaism and grants Copts the same rights and freedoms as other Egyptians.
However, Egypt is overwhelmingly a Sunni Muslim country and Egyptian laws and long-standing practices are generally designed to safeguard the majority. The two problems mentioned most frequently as impacting on Christian practice are restrictions on building or repairing churches and the operation of laws banning “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) or inciting sectarian strife”, commonly referred to as blasphemy law.
Sectarian tensions have increased in Egypt since the 1970s, due in part to economic problems and to weakening of law and order mechanisms. The resulting outbreaks of sectarian violence have mostly taken the form of vandalism and destruction of property and have occurred mostly in Upper Egypt, although Cairo and Alexandria have also been affected.
Egypt has experienced a number of significant changes in recent years. The Mubarak regime was overthrown in January 2011 and replaced with a military council which ruled until elections in June 2012, which were won by Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi's government was removed by the military in July 2013 and replaced with a military dominated interim government which banned the Muslim Brotherhood in December 2013 and arrested between 22,000 and 29,000 Muslim Brotherhood supporters or suspected members, of whom some 7,000 remained in pre-trail detention in July 2014.[3] Elections held in May 2014 saw former defence Minister Abdul Fatah al-Sisi elected President
[3] Immigration Report pp 49-50 and Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2015, available at
While there is no evidence of a significant increase in sectarian violence during the time Morsi was President, there was an increase in the number of ultra conservative Islamist groups such as Salafist parties and in the frequency of negative and sometimes inflammatory anti-Christian statements which in turn contributed to an increase of threats and attacks on Christian communities in some areas.[4]
[4] Issues Paper Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christian & State Protection, Department of Immigration and Border Protection 3 March 2012 [Immigration Report] pp 54-55 and DFAT Thematic Report. 3.36
Coptic Christians were greatly concerned about their future under an Islamist government and most welcomed the military intervention which removed Morsi. This contributed to the most serious outbreak of anti-Christian sectarian violence in recent times, which occurred in July and August 2013 when supporters of President Morsi attacked Christian churches, property and people. According to DFAT this violence was not orchestrated by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, but was carried out by radical supporters of the group in retaliation for what they saw as the significant role Christians played in Morsi's removal.
According to DFAT there has been a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks against Copts under the Sisi administration. In a similar vein the US Committee for International Religious Freedom 2015, which covers 2014 and early 2015 stated that, while sporadic violence continued, the number and severity of violence incidents targeting Copts and their property had decreased significantly since the previous year.
In their Thematic Report of November 2015 DFAT stated that it was their assessment that the day to day life for most Coptic Christians was not overtly affected by communal tensions adding that:
...most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other's religious identity.
However, small-scale disputes (such as neighbourhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community-level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas. Spikes in communal tensions can also coincide with broader political upheavals (2.20).
Similarly, after reviewing information from a range of sources the UK Border Agency concluded in its Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians report of 30 June 2014, 'although Christians do face personal and collective societal discrimination and repeated instances of sectarian violence, Christians in Egypt are not in general at risk of persecution or ill-treatment.’[5]
[5] Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians’, UK Border Agency, 30 June 2014, pp.7-8, available at
However, the most recent United States International Religious Freedom Report[6] indicates that the Egyptian government failed to respond to or prevent sectarian violence in some cases, in particular outside of major cities according to human rights advocates and continued to hold “reconciliation sessions” to address incidents of sectarian violence which adopted findings favoring members of the majority Muslim community most of the time. “Reconciliation sessions” after sectarian attacks were used instead of prosecuting perpetrators and these sessions preclude recourse to the judicial system because in most cases the parties agreed to drop all formal charges and lawsuits and stipulated by the terms of the session. They failed to prosecute It was also reported that religious minorities continued to face significant threats of sectarian violence according to religious and human rights groups. There were also reports of lethal sectarian violence continuing over the year.
[6] United States, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, International Religious Freedom Report for 2015
The November 2015 Thematic Report also indicates that Copts have access to state protection in Egypt. According to the report:
DFAT assesses that on a day-to-day basis in urban areas, the state has a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts, and generally does so. Copts facing harassment are able to go to a local police station for protection in these areas. DFAT assesses that, under the Sisi Government, the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances. However, societal discrimination may impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.
Discrimination
Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited under Egyptian law; however Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Amnesty International reports that it and other human rights organisations have documented a pattern of discrimination against Coptic Christians in Egypt that has been prevalent for ‘decades’.[7] Similarly, the European parliamentary Research Service states that Egypt’s religious minorities, including Copts, have suffered for decades from discrimination.[8]
[7] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt: Security forces abandon Coptic Christians during deadly attack in Luxor, 23 July Accessed 17 December 2013 CX316551; Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094
[8] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights - Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.1 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion; however, in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[9] In October 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds.[10] The decree added Article 161(ii), which defines discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief’.[11] It establishes a minimum and maximum fines (from EGP30,000 (approximately AUD 4,929)[12] to EGP50,000 (AUD 8,216)) and/or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination. The article adds more severe penalties for government officials who commit a discriminatory act,[13] with a minimum sentence of three months imprisonment and/or a minimum fine of EGP50,000 (AUD 8,216) and a maximum fine of EGP100,000 (AUD 16,438).[14] USDOS reports, however, that the amendment does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[15] The report notes that during 2013 ‘there were no indications in the media that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.’[16] Similarly, the January DFAT 2014 report on Copts states that while ‘anti‑discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement’.[17]
[9] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[10] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[11] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013
[12] Based on foreign exchanges rates of 4 February 2014 obtained from US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[14] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013
[15] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[16] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[17] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
The 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an anti‑discrimination clause. Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief.[18] Although the Constitution reaffirms Islam as the state religion, it recognises Christianity as one of the ‘heavenly religions’ and acknowledges the Coptic Orthodox Church as an official sect of Christianity.[19] However, Minority Rights Group International states that ‘it remains to be seen whether there will be a substantive legal and policy shift towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life’.[20] Reporting on the likely effect of the Constitution, the EIPR states that ‘taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt, it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.’[21]
[18] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92048
[19] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158; ‘What’s new in Egypt’s draft constitution’ 2013, BBC News, 3 December Accessed 5 December 2013 CX316553
[20] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January 2014 CX317623
[21] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights - Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.6 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
Sources indicate that Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Several reports were located stating that despite initial optimism on the part of Copts, and public messages of support by President el-Sisi for the Coptic community, discrimination against Copts has continued since el-Sisi was elected.[22] Regarding societal discrimination, DFAT assesses that that ‘community prejudice’ against Copts is ‘pervasive’ but the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio‑economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low‑level and infrequent’ in middle class urban areas but ‘higher’ in poor urban and rural areas.[23] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Muslims across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[24] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims’ and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam.’[25] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination.’[26] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[27]
[22] Amin, S 2015, ‘What now for Egypt’s Christians?’, Ahram Online, 13 January Accessed 10 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1298; Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714; Kingsley, P 2015, ‘Egyptian President Attends Coptic Christmas Eve Mass in Cairo’, The Guardian, 8 January Accessed 6 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1385
[23] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[24] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[25] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.11 CIS27158
[26] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June, p.7 OG180885B8
[27] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094
Reports published by the United States Department of State,[28] Carnegie Endowment,[29] Open Democracy[30] and Ahram Online[31] between 2015 and 2013 all state that Copts face official discrimination in Egypt, particularly with respect to appointments to senior positions within the public sector, public universities, security forces, judiciary and Egyptian government. In its January 2014 report on Copts in Egypt, DFAT provided a somewhat different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination.[32] While DFAT reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[33] DFAT does report, however, that ‘societal discrimination can create a “glass ceiling” for promotions’ as ‘Copts tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles and in the upper ranks of the military and security services.’[34] According to DFAT ‘subtle favouritism and patronage could rule Copts out of senior positions.’[35]
Kidnappings
[28] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, pp. 13-15 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[29] Brownlee, J 2013, Violence Against Copts in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406
[30] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714
[31] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714 Ahram Online is a state-owned English-language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic-language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About AhramOnline Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring 2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Center – Accessed 23 May 2013; Ezzat, D 2013, ‘Egyptian Christians struggle to overcome minority status’, Ahram Online, 27 September Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469
[32] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[33] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
[34] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
[35] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158

In relation to kidnappings DFAT advise:
4.31 Since the January 2011 revolution, there has been a general deterioration in law and order throughout Egypt which has resulted in an increase of violent crime against all communities. The Coptic community suffered particularly from an increase in kidnappings, particularly in Upper Egypt, due to a perception that Copts were more willing and able to pay ransoms. DFAT is not able to determine the number of Christians who were kidnapped following the 2011 Revolution. In most instances, families paid the demanded ransom, and the authorities did not pursue the kidnappers.[36]
[36] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 January 2015
The Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization (EUHRO)[37] reports that in the six months to September 2014, there were 239 kidnappings from Minya, Assuit, Sohag and other governorates, with the majority of cases occurring in Minya.[38] The abovementioned January 2014 DFAT report, states that according to their contacts ‘there have been over 40 cases of kidnappings of Christians – mostly in Upper Egypt – since 14 August 2013.’[39] DFAT notes, however, that ‘it is not able to determine the number of Christians who were kidnapped during the SCAF period (or the Morsi Government).’[40] According to Christian Solidarity International,[41] between August 2013 and November 2013 ‘Christians leaders reported that more than 20 Christians had been abducted since August [2013], and over 100 since the 2011 revolution.’[42] According to the article, ‘a CSI survey of local Christian press reports shows more than 50 Christians have been abducted in Egypt since that report’ with Christian activists in Nag Hammadi reporting ‘as many as 42 kidnappings of Christians in their town alone since November 2013.’[43] In a November 2013 article Morning Star News[44] reported that although the exact number of kidnappings is difficult to estimate, ‘human rights activists say that the attacks are both common and widespread, affecting Christians in dozens of towns.’[45] According to the report, ‘almost every week, there are reports of Copts kidnapped and held for ransom.’[46]
[37] Hendawi, H 2013, ‘For Christians, disappointment and fears replace dreams of equality in post-Morsi Egypt’, Associated Press, 16 November, Montreal Gazette Accessed 9 December 2013 CX316323
[38] Nadler, A 2014, ‘Security forces treat Copts as badly as under Mubarak rule: EUHRO Head’, Daily News Egypt, 21 September Accessed 29 October 2014 CX1B9ECAB6489
[39] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.16 CIS27158
[40] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.16 CIS27158
[41] Christian Solidarity International (CSI) was founded in Switzerland in 1997 and is a Christian human rights organisation for religious liberty
[42] Christian Solidarity International 2014, Genocide Alert: The Arab Republic of Egypt, September Accessed 13 November 2014 CIS2F827D91545
[43] Christian Solidarity International 2014, Genocide Alert: The Arab Republic of Egypt, September Accessed 13 November 2014 CIS2F827D91545
[44] Morning Star News is a web-based news service focusing on persecution of Christians. It was founded by the editor of Christian News service Compass Direct in 2012. ‘After Retaking of Delga, Christians Terrorized in other Towns in Egypt’ 2013, Morning Star News, 25 November Accessed 20 May 2014 CX320944
[46] ‘After Retaking of Delga, Christians Terrorized in other Towns in Egypt’ 2013, Morning Star News, 25 November Accessed 20 May 2014 CX320944
The motivation behind the kidnapping of Copts varies. For some it is to obtain a ransom; other kidnapped women and girls have been forced to convert to Islam and marry their abductors. The Carnegie Endowment, Christian Solidarity International (CSI), United States Department of State and DFAT have all reported that Christians are targeted for kidnap because of their perception of wealth and due to a lack of police protection and legal recourse.[47] For example, a November 2013 report by the Carnegie Endowment quotes an unidentified official from the Ministry of Interior as stating:
Kidnapping Christians is an easy way to make money… [They] don’t have the tribal or clan backup that will deter kidnappers and they are happy to pay the ransom to gain the freedom of their loved ones.’[48]
[47] Christian Solidarity International 2014, Genocide Alert: The Arab Republic of Egypt, September Accessed 13 November 2014 CIS2F827D91545; Brownlees, J 2013, Violence against Copts in Egypt, p.15 Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406; US Department of State 2014, 2013 Report on International Religious Freedom – Egypt, 28 July, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 18 February 2015 CX325230 ; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.16 CIS27158
[48] Brownlees, J 2013, Violence against Copts in Egypt, p.15 Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406
A November 2013 article by The Morning Star News quotes the Director of the Minya Branch of the Al-Kalema Human Rights Organization (AHRO)[49] as stating that the ransom demanded in nine separate kidnappings of Copts in Minya varied from between 100,000 ($17,069 AUD)[50] and 250,000 Egyptian Pounds ($42,677 AUD)[51] for each case. According to AHRO, these demands are ‘enormous for the average Egyptian, with the amounts based on Muslims’ widespread perception that Copts are wealthy.’[52]
[49] According to its website, the Al-Kalema Human Rights Organization (AHRO) is an independent and not-for-profit organisation ‘aimed at supporting and establishing the institutions of civil society.’ The AHRO is a member of the International Federation for Human Rights and has a consultive status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
[50] Based on foreign exchanges rates of 4 February 2014 obtained from Based on foreign exchanges rates of 4 February 2014 obtained from
[52] ‘After Retaking of Delga, Christians Terrorized in other Towns in Egypt’ 2013, Morning Star News, 25 November Accessed 20 May 2014 CX320944
The Tribunal also notes that the United States’ Department of State’s report on Religious Freedom for 2014 reported that the police and security officials reportedly failed to respond in cases of kidnapping and extortion of Christians in Upper Egypt and that Christians in Upper Egypt were targeted for kidnapping and extortion disproportionately as well as to a lesser degree in the Cairo area and the north. It also reported that the Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawdros identified kidnapping as among the most significant problems facing Christians.[53]
[53] United States Department of State’s Egypt 2014 International Religious Freedom Report
The Tribunal has also considered the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s 2016 Annual Report and notes that although the Egyptian government has taken positive steps to address some religious freedom concerns the human rights conditions continue to deteriorate. It was reported that following the 2013 church attacks, the number of incidents of kidnapping for ransom and extortion of Christians rose dramatically. It goes on to say that while these incidents have decreased over the past year, they continue in parts of the country, particularly in Upper Egypt.[54]
[54]
The Tribunal has also considered the country information provided by the applicant’s representative addressing country information relied on by the delegate as well as information about kidnappings.
Assessment and findings
The Tribunal applicant’s claims to fear returning to Egypt are essentially to do with discrimination as a Coptic Christian, his attack by unknown assailants because of his religion, his fear of being kidnapped because of his religion and his profession as a [occupation].
Country information referred to earlier confirms there is discrimination at all levels of Egyptian society against Christians. The Tribunal accepts this is religiously motivated and is aimed at all religious minorities. The applicant's experience in relation to having had difficulty with his studies because he is a Christian is not unique.
Enforcement of a generally applicable law does not ordinarily constitute persecution for the purposes of the Convention,[55] for the reason that enforcement of such a law does not ordinarily constitute discrimination.[56] As Brennan CJ stated in Applicant A:
… the feared persecution must be discriminatory. … [It] must be “for reasons of” one of [the prescribed] categories. This qualification ... excludes persecution which is no more than punishment of a non-discriminatory kind for contravention of a criminal law of general application. Such laws are not discriminatory and punishment that is non-discriminatory cannot stamp the contravener with the mark of “refugee”.[57]
[55] Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225 per McHugh J at 258 referring to Yang v Carroll (1994) 852 F Supp 460 at 467.
[56] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, at [20].
[57]Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225, at 233.
The principle that, ordinarily, non-discriminatory application of generally applicable laws does not constitute persecution applies whether or not a particular law is oppressive or repugnant to the values of our society.[58] In Applicant A Dawson J agreed with the observations of the Full Federal Court in that case that:
Since a person must establish well-founded fear of persecution for certain specified reasons in order to be a refugee within the meaning of the Convention, it follows that not all persons at risk of persecution are refugees. And that must be so even if the persecution is harsh and totally repugnant to the fundamental values of our society and the international community. For example, a country might have laws of general application which punish severely, perhaps even with the death penalty, conduct which would not be criminal at all in Australia. The enforcement of such laws would doubtless be persecution, but without more it would not be persecution for one of the reasons stated in the Convention.[59]
[58] See eg, Zheng Jia Cai v MIMA (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, French J, 13 June 1997) at 16; Lama v MIMA (1999) 57 ALD 613 at [30], upheld on appeal in Lama v MIMA [1999] FCA 1620 (Branson, Sackville and Kiefel JJ, 19 November 1999); and Alamdar v MIMA [2001] FCA 1244 (Emmett J, 30 July 2001). See further discussion below under the heading ‘Value-laden laws’.
[59]Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225, at 245 citing with apparent approval MIEA v Respondent A and B (1995) 57 FCR 309 at 319. Note that the description of harsh punishment under a generally applicable law as ‘persecution’ is inconsistent with High Court authority which holds that persecution necessarily involves discrimination, as do the requirements of persecution in s.91R(1)(a) and (c).
Whether a law is properly characterised as a law of general application turns on identifying those members of the population to whom it applies.[60] In some circumstances, it may be necessary to look behind a law that is generally expressed, to establish whether the law itself is in truth discriminatory in its intent or whether it has a discriminatory impact on members of a group recognised by the Convention.
[60] See Weheliye v MIMA [2001] FCA 1222 (Goldberg J, 31 August 2001), at [50].
The High Court in Chen Shi Hai v MIMA confirmed that laws or policies which target, or only apply to, or impact adversely upon, a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application:
Laws or policies which target or apply only to a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application. Certainly, laws which target or impact adversely upon a particular class or group - for example, “black children”, as distinct from children generally - cannot properly be described in that way. … To say that, ordinarily, a law of general application is not discriminatory is not to deny that general laws, which are apparently non-discriminatory, may impact differently on different people and, thus, operate discriminatorily. Nor is it to overlook the possibility that selective enforcement of a law of general application may result in discrimination. As a general rule, however, a law of general application is not discriminatory.[61]
[61] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ at [19] to [21]. See also per Kirby J at [72] and Wang v MIMA (2000) 105 FCR 548 at [50]-[68] where Merkel J (Wilcox and Gray JJ agreeing) discussed what the High Court and courts in other jurisdictions have said about ‘laws of general application’. Referring to Chen, his Honour at [65] reiterated that ‘[a] law that targets or applies to persons by reason of their political opinions, religion, race or membership of a pre-existing group, is not properly described as a law of general application’. Thus, laws regulating the practice of religion, requiring that they be practised or observed in a particular way or targeting or applying only to persons practicing religion, are not laws of ‘general application’. Nevertheless, consideration may still need to be given as to whether such a law has a legitimate object (see below). Although a law that is general in its terms may impact adversely upon a particular group, this of itself, will not necessarily mean it is not a law of general application, see comments in SZDNE v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 717 (Raphael FM, 14 October 2004) at [10]. The Court described the Nepalese law against bovicide as ‘truly a law of general application. It may have a different effect on different people because persons such as the applicant have no religious views concerning cows, but the law is the same for him as it is for the highest caste of Brahmin who may reside in Nepal’.
In this case, the Tribunal has considered the country information as set out above and notes that discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited under Egyptian law, however there are reports (referred to earlier) that confirm that Coptic Christians continue to face official and societal discrimination and that this has been prevalent for decades. The US Department of State’s International Religious Freedom report notes that although Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion; in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[62] In October 2011, while the Supreme Council of the Armed forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds[63] and added Article 161(ii), defining discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief’,[64] and provides for fines or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination this amendment however does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[65] Further there have been no indications according the United States Department of State that during 2013 that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.[66] In 2014 DFAT has also reported that while ‘anti‑discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement’.[67]
[62] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[63] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[64] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013
[65] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[66] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[67] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
Although the 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an anti‑discrimination clause and Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief,[68] country information indicates that it still remains to be seen whether there will be substantive legal and policy towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life’.[69] The European Parliament also notes that taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response which are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt; it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.[70]
[68] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92048
[69] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January 2014 CX317623
[70] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights - Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.6 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
The Tribunal notes that DFAT has assessed community prejudice against Copts to be pervasive and the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio‑economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low‑level and infrequent’ in middle class urban areas but ‘higher’ in poor urban and rural areas.[71] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Muslims across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[72] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims’ and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam.’[73] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination.’[74] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[75]
[71] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[72] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[73] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.11 CIS27158
[74] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June, p.7 OG180885B8
[75] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094

As noted earlier reports published by the United States Department of State,[76] the Carnegie Endowment,[77] Open Democracy[78] and Ahram Online[79] between 2015 and 2013 all refer to Copts facing official discrimination in Egypt within the public sector including government, universities, security forced and the judiciary. Although DFAT has provided a different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination[80] and while DFAT reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[81]
[76] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, pp. 13-15 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[77] Brownlee, J 2013, Violence Against Copts in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406
[78] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714
[79] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714 Ahram Online is a state-owned English-language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic-language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About AhramOnline Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring 2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Center – Accessed 23 May 2013; Ezzat, D 2013, ‘Egyptian Christians struggle to overcome minority status’, Ahram Online, 27 September Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469
[80] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[81] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
The country information indicates that while Egypt has anti-discrimination laws, the information confirms that these are often not enforced when it relates to Coptic Christians. Therefore the Tribunal accepts that as a Coptic Christian the applicant has faced discrimination in gaining entry into university and in his studies. The Tribunal accepts there may be a real chance he will be discriminated against if he chooses to work in any state run [facilities].
The Tribunal next considered the claims that the applicant had been attacked in 2012 and 2013 for reasons of his religion. The Tribunal notes that while the delegate accepted that the applicant had been attacked at [a] station in 2012, the delegate was not satisfied that this was religiously motivated or systematic or discriminatory but rather random and an isolated incident. In relation to the attack in 2013 in [a certain suburb] the delegate accepted this may have occurred but was concerned about some of the applicant's evidence in particular that the applicant had claimed that the assailants were connected with Gamal Saber, a prominent Salafi, and a high profile head of the Al-Ansar Party and the coordinator of the Hazemoon group and a former campaign manager for a presidential candidate. The delegate noted that there was no information to indicate that there was any sectarian element to the violence but occurred at a game of soccer in which Saber’s son killed another boy. The delegate noted that the applicant had claimed during the protection visa interview that he was unaware of the cause of the unrest on that day and there were some differing accounts as to who had assaulted him and how he had connected the assault to Gamal Saber. The applicant claimed he was singled out for harm because he had been in a Christian hospital and the assailants would have been waiting for any Christian to come out and he looked like a Christian. The delegate considered country information that indicated the violence on that day was not sectarian but rather communal and did not find the applicant's claim to be satisfactory. The delegate considered there was no evidence that the applicant would have come to the attention of Gamal Saber or his associates for any reason. He found that it was a coincidence that he was attacked and this was a random incident amidst the context of an isolated incident of violence between [groups of people].
The applicant has contended that the reason he was attacked at [a] station was because of his appearance that is he is obviously not a Muslim. He does not believe he would have been targeted if he had been dressed or appeared in some way to be a Muslim.
As far as the attack while the applicant was in [certain suburb], he has also argued that he was at a Christian Hospital and the hospital was closed to the public. He argued that anyone coming out of the hospital would have been assumed to be a staff member of the hospital and Christian therefore a target of an attack. While there may be no country information that there was a sectarian element to the unrest on the day of the applicant's attack, there has been a long history of sectarian clashes involving Gamal and Coptic Christians in the area. Christians in Minya are easily identifiable and therefore more likely to be attacked.
Country information that sectarian violence has been prevalent for the past few years, particular since the ousting of the former prime minister and the decline of the Arab Spring. The Tribunal has noted country information regarding sectarian violence and the targeting of Christians and accepts that the applicant has been targeted and harmed physically on two occasions and accepts this was because he was identified as a Christian.
The applicant has also claimed that there the possibility that he would face being kidnapped should he return to [town] because he is a Christian [professional] and he would be at additional risk as his parents live in [another country] and would be perceived to be from a wealthy family. The delegate noted that while country information confirming kidnapping of Christians including [professionals] have occurred in Minya they were not targeted for kidnap by virtue of their profession alone. The delegate considered there was no country information to support the applicant's claim that he would be kidnapped on the grounds of perceived wealth alone or because his parents live in [another country]. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant would be obliged to return to Minya and could see no impediment to his living and working elsewhere in Egypt. The delegate noted there was no evidence to indicate that Christian [professionals] are being systematically targeted elsewhere in Egypt and he noted that the applicant resided for extended periods in both Asyut and Cairo. Therefore the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear that extends to Egypt as a whole. The delegate also noted that country information indicates violence against Coptic Christians increased after July 2013 primarily due to the perceived support by the church for the ousting of the former president but has subdued significantly since then. The delegate concluded there is no more than a remote chance that the applicant would be subjected to persecution should he return to Egypt now or in the foreseeable future. The delegate also found that the applicant's fear of harm reflect only his subjective fear as a result of recent events in Egypt.
The applicant argued that the occurrences of kidnappings are familiar to the Coptic Christian minority in Minya especially since the arrest of the former Prime Minister Morsi and the clampdown of the Muslim brotherhood.[82] This article refers to another form of anti-Christian Islamic political violence namely ransom kidnappings and that since the start of the “Arab Spring” revolts, almost a hundred Christians have been kidnapped in Upper Egypt and released after families paid a ransom. The article refers to the Minya province as the main centre of these kidnappings and the authorities, especially the police doing little or nothing to curb this phenomenon:
[information deleted]
[82] The Vatican Insider World News 14 November 2013
The Tribunal has noted the country information that Coptic Christians are targeted for kidnapping and the Tribunal accepts on the basis of the country information that the applicant has the profile that would make him a possible target as such. The applicant has mainly been raised outside of Egypt and his parents continue to live in [another country], he is a [professional] and a Christian and his family is well known in his community in [town]. Country information confirms that professions particularly [name] have been targeted for kidnaping, especially in Upper Egypt. Given the applicant’s profile that as a Christian [professional] with family who live overseas and Christian relatives who live in [town] there is a real chance, not a remote chance that he would be targeted.
The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has attempted to seek protection as a result of the [number] assaults by reporting these incidents to the police. The Tribunal also notes that applicant has not claimed that the police on both occasions refused to investigate but rather that they probably did nothing as most are Muslim and would not go out of their way to help him as he is a Christian.
The Tribunal notes that the Egyptian National Police are responsible for law enforcement nationwide and various sources including DFAT[83] indicate that police investigative skills remain poor and they suffer from shortfalls in training and equipment. The Tribunal acknowledges that that security situation has changed somewhat since 2013 and police in urban areas are more likely to provide more effective protection, DFAT nevertheless notes that the Egyptian police are a reflection of the Egyptian population and the increasingly conservative nature of the Egyptian society is mirrored in the police force particularly in rural areas. In areas outside major cities, the police live in the community they police and are subject to local pressure to make choices that are congruent with dominant social mores. The United States Department of State noted in 2013 that there were credible reports that security forces failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities. The UK Home Office’s Country Information Guidance, Egypt: Christians noted that “in MS (paragraph 151(1)) the Upper Tribunal found that there was inadequate state protection for Coptic Christians.[84]
[83] United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Egypt, 27 February 2014; DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 28 January 2014
[84] UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 14 July 2014
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant could safely relocate to another area of Egypt to avoid the harm feared but concluded that this was not possible or reasonable in his circumstances. The applicant's family are from [town], he has other relatives and networks there and his parents remain in [another country]. Although DFAT assesses that in urban areas the Egyptian state is generally able to provide protection to Copts and see this in the interests of the state to be responsive to Coptic grievances,[85] numerous other sources including DFAT itself refer to the failure of authorities to carry out investigations and prosecutions in cases of sectarian violence which has contributed to an air of relative impunity.[86] Despite the election of a new president in May 2014 and the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, the evidence before the Tribunal does not indicate that the situation in relation to state protection for Coptic Christians has changed. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that state protection is not available for the applicant,
[85] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 29 January
[86] Human Rights Watch 2013, Egypt: Address recurring sectarian violence, 10 April accessed 15 May 2013 CX307093; Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March
In light of all the evidence, including the country information, the Tribunal is of the view that while official and societal discrimination of themselves may not constitute serious harm, the cumulative effect of these in conjunction to the applicant's religion and his past experiences of harm may be sufficiently serious as to constitute persecution. The Tribunal has also taken into account that the applicant has a profile that makes him a potential target of kidnapping because of his particular attributes.
The Tribunal is satisfies that cumulatively there is a real chance that the applicant is at risk of serious harm if he returns to Egypt now and in the reasonably foreseeable future and there is a real chance that persecution will occur. This is based on the applicant's past experiences of discrimination and assault as a Coptic Christian and that supports a conclusion that his fear is well-founded. The country reports indicate that while there has been some reduction in sectarian violence, this still occurs and there has been no appreciable change in treatment of Coptic Christians. In addition country information also supports a finding that a person such as the applicant faces a real prospect of being targeted further because of his religion and his profession and would be perceived as a person whose family have the resources to pay a ransom.
In this case, the Tribunal considers the applicant's cumulative circumstances are grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution.
Therefore the Tribunal finds that the treatment the applicant faces on his return to Egypt amounts to serious harm on cumulative grounds. Therefore the Tribunal finds he satisfies s.91(R(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is of the view that there is a real chance of persecution on the grounds of the applicant's religion which includes his past experiences of discrimination and his membership of a particular social group namely an Egyptian Christian [professional] targeted for harm.
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
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