1416529 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3734

1416529 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3734 (24 November 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1416529

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:24 November 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 24 November 2015 at 5:36pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, arrived in Australia [in] November 2012.  He applied for a Protection visa [in] February 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] September 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 November 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

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.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is entitled to a protection visa on refugee grounds (s.36(2)(a)) or, if not, whether he is entitled to protection on complementary protection grounds (s.36(2)(aa)).  For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   Summary of the applicant’s claims

10. In his application for a Protection visa, dated [in] February 2013, the applicant claims:

11. He was persecuted by members of the Muslim Brotherhood and his life was at risk.  In about 2008 he joined a local group of reformists who were not happy with the government at the time.  The group had many Muslim Brotherhood members in it but he was never a member himself.  However, he was fighting the same cause as they were. 

12. In 2010 he was arrested and detained by the authorities and his release was facilitated by Muslim Brotherhood members.  He was grateful for that and assisted them with many favours.  After a while though they began to try to force him to join them.

13. He is not an overly religious person and has always been against fundamentalism.  He has opposed the Muslim Brotherhood politically and religiously and was verbal about his beliefs.  He tried reporting their activities to the police but the police were not willing to listen to him.  The Islamists who included [leaders] tried to accuse him of insulting the Prophet Mohamed.  The Muslim Brotherhood are forcing people to follow their beliefs.  He refused.  His problems are now also with Salafist's.

14. He was harassed by Islamists and attacked because they believe his ideas are kafir western.   He was pressured to adopt the Islamist way of thinking.  His home was broken into and his family and he were threatened with death unless they follow the correct path. In the street he was threatened with a knife at his throat and forced into a car.  He was taken to a private home where he was tortured.  This occurred after he spoke to the police about the Muslim Brotherhood activities.

15. The authorities, sheiks and Islamist community are fundamentalist in their beliefs and he fears he will be killed or persecuted.  He will not be able to live a normal life due to his religious and political beliefs.  The authorities are Islamic and are not able to control the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist’s.

    Delegates Decision

16. The Delegate did not accept that any of the applicant’s claims are credible and did not find he had or would suffer any persecution from the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Nationality

17. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Egypt.  He travelled to Australia as the holder of a passport issued by the Egyptian authorities, with [number].  A copy of this passport is attached to the applicant’s protection visa application.  The applicant made no claim to be a national of any other country.  The tribunal accepts that his claims should be assessed against Egypt for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) of the Act and as the “receiving country” for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in any other country, and therefore, he is not excluded from Australia’s protection obligations under s.36(3) of the Act.

    Tribunal hearing

18. At the commencement of the hearing the applicant was asked about information contained in Department movement records which indicate he left Australia for a time in 2015.  The Tribunal notes that this information indicates he travelled to [another country in] March 2015 and returned to Australia from [another country in] June 2015.  In the hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he had intended to go to the [other country] to meet his wife and children for a time but that his [child] fell ill and he actually travelled to Egypt.  He said his wife and children joined him in Cairo for that time and that they stayed for a while with a cousin and later with a friend and they also spent some time with his [sibling] in [City 1] which is about [distance] from Cairo. 

19. When asked if he had encountered any difficulties or been approached by anybody looking for him during this period he said he had not but that he didn’t go out a lot because the country was in turmoil.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any medical records to support his [child]’s ill-health as it was difficult to understand why he would have returned to Egypt otherwise given his stated fears for his safety.  He said he did not have any records and confirmed his [child] was no longer ill.   The applicant said he did not return to his local area as that would have been unsafe.  The applicant was also asked if he encountered any difficulty entering or departing Egypt and he said he did not.

20. The applicant was asked if he had lived elsewhere in Egypt prior to his departure in 2012.  He said that for approximately six months before he left the country he was hiding out in Cairo or spending time with his [siblings] in [City 1] due to the difficulties he encountered with members of the Muslim Brotherhood in his local area.  He said he returned to his village from time to time to see his family but that he did this in secret. 

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he would return to an area he said was unsafe for him instead of bringing his family to Cairo.  He said that the cost of living in Cairo was too expensive.  The Tribunal pointed out that he has said he had a successful business and land which he could have sold.  The applicant insisted that it was too expensive to live in Cairo.  The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he claims to have been scared for his life in his village and that it was surely a matter of survival rather than economic difficulty. 

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his family are experiencing any difficulties now in the village and he replied that they are only worried about him. 

    Involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood

23. The applicant explained that he became involved with members of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2008 through his businesses.  He said he ran [a shop and] provided transport services.  He said he was not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and confirmed he only provided services to individual members.   The applicant stated that these Muslim Brotherhood members were against the Mubarak regime and campaigning to overthrow him.  He said they asked him to approach wealthy businessmen in the area for donations but he declined to get involved and overtime stopped working with them.

24. The applicant said that because he knew their inner workings and secrets he was imprisoned in 2010.  He said that he was held and interrogated by the public security officers for one week and slapped and kicked.  When asked what he was interrogated about he said he was asked about the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood members.  The Tribunal pointed out that the applicant said in his statement that the Muslim Brotherhood facilitated his release from detention.  He agreed but said that later on he found out that it was the Muslim Brotherhood who were responsible for his arrest in the first place because he had distanced himself from them.  When asked about his release he said the public security office knew he was just a driver and that is why they let him go.   The Tribunal stated that it made absolutely no sense that the Muslim Brotherhood would have him arrested only for him to be interrogated about their own activities and then to have him released so that he could resume working with them.  The applicant offered no plausible explanation for this other than to say that it was normal for such things to happen in Egypt and that the police can do anything they want.

25. The Tribunal asked the applicant to name the key Muslim Brotherhood members he dealt with.  He said there are millions of members throughout Egypt.  He was pushed to provide the names of key individuals.  He mentioned one name and then had to stop and think before offering two other names. The Tribunal was not persuaded at all that the names he provided belong to Muslim Brotherhood members he had dealings with.

26. The Tribunal stated that it appeared the applicant’s only connection to the Muslim Brotherhood was as a service provider and that it was therefore difficult to comprehend why he would be harmed on return to Egypt for any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.  The applicant stated that the new regime is arresting and killing Muslim Brotherhood members and anybody connected to them.  Again, the Tribunal noted that it was difficult to see how his business dealings with Muslim Brotherhood members could be construed as him supporting the organisation, particularly as the membership of the Muslim Brotherhood was vast and many ordinary Egyptians would have daily dealings with its members.    The Tribunal referred at hearing to information contained in DFAT’s Country Report of 28 January 2014, which it subsequently notes is consistent with the latest DFAT Country Information Report dated 24 November 2015, which confirms that since July 2013 the Muslim Brotherhood has been severely impacted by the arrest of thousands of its leaders, members and supporters[1] but stated that he did not fall into any of these categories as all he had done was provide a commercial service to Muslim Brotherhood members.  The Tribunal considers the applicant provided no plausible explanation as to why he would be at risk of harm from the authorities due to his association with Muslim Brotherhood members. 

    [1] DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 28 January 2014; DFAT Country Information Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015; DIBP Issues Paper, Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christians and State Protection, 3 March 2015; UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood October 2014

27. The applicant also claims to fear harm from the Muslim Brotherhood themselves because he had distanced himself from them and as mentioned above they had previously had him arrested.  He said he was also attacked coming home from [a café]towards the end of November 2011, after 1.00am in the morning.  He said he had been drinking alcohol at the café which was very close to his home.  He said his attackers accused him of moving away from the Muslim Brotherhood and said he knew their secrets.  He said they also accused him of drinking and of swearing at the Prophet and that this was the last time he would receive a warning about that.  The applicant confirmed this was a verbal assault only. 

28. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had reported the matter to the police.  He said he once tried to report a threat made against him but that the police did nothing.  The Tribunal asked the applicant about whom he had made the complaint.  He referred again to the Muslim Brotherhood individuals he named earlier.  The Tribunal pointed out that he had earlier had difficulty recalling those names and yet now claims they were the people he reported to the police.  He said that is because there are millions of Muslim Brotherhood members.  The Tribunal pointed out that he could not have been harassed by millions of members and that it thought he would be able to remember the names of those contributing to his problems about whom he had made a report to the police.

29. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any other instances of harm he had not referred to.  The applicant thought long and hard and said that people had once come to his house to ask his wife about him and once came when he was there.  When asked what had happened when they found him there he said they asked him why he was not working for them any longer. 

30. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that in his protection application he says he was once threatened on the street and had a knife held to his throat and was taken in a car to a house and tortured.  The Tribunal asked why the applicant had not referred to such serious matters when asked about further harm.  He said that he hadn’t finished stating what had happened to him.  The Tribunal notes that at the commencement of the hearing when asked if there were any mistakes or omissions in his application, the applicant alluded to making certain omissions of harm in his discussions with the Delegate and in the circumstances the Tribunal considers he would have been mindful at this hearing to include as many details about his problems as possible.   The Tribunal informed the applicant that it was not persuaded by his response and that it considered such serious allegations ought to have been referred to without the Tribunal having to prompt him. 

    The applicant’s religious/political beliefs

31. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his religious and political views in view of his claims to be against fundamentalism and vocal about his religious and political beliefs. 

32. The applicant confirmed he is a Muslim and that he attended mosque in Egypt and attends a mosque in [Australia] for Friday prayers.  He said that he drinks alcohol which is freely available in Egypt.  He said other than the incident which occurred outside [a café] in November 2011 he had never encountered problems in Egypt due to drinking alcohol.  He confirmed that insulting the Prophet or other people’s religion is not something he would do and that this was just an excuse levelled at him by the Muslim Brotherhood attackers.  He said he has no particular religious views and regarding politics he was simply opposed to Mubarak.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had encountered problems in Egypt due to his political views and he said he had not.  He said however that there is no freedom in Egypt and the police can do anything under the current regime and that there is a lot of injustice.  The Tribunal stated that it could see no reason why he would be jailed on return to Egypt, that his past political/religious activities appear not to have caused him any harm and that there was no information before the Tribunal to suggest that anti-Mubarak demonstrators, of which there were many, were currently being pursued by the authorities in Egypt. 

33. The Tribunal pointed out that even if it thought there was some risk of harm to the applicant in his local area, it would also have to consider whether he could safely relocate to another area in Egypt.  The Tribunal pointed out that the applicant previously stated he lived in Cairo on and off for about six months prior to coming to Australia and recently had returned there for three months to see his family without coming to any harm on those occasions.  The Tribunal also stated that the applicant appears to be an enterprising man and that he has relatives in Cairo and [City 1] who could provide further support.  The applicant reiterated that he fears returning to his local area. 

34. The Tribunal acknowledged that the political situation in Egypt remains in flux and referred at hearing to information contained in DFAT’s Country Report of 28 January 2014, which it subsequently notes is consistent with the latest DFAT Country Information Report dated 24 November 2015, which suggests to the Tribunal that the Muslim Brotherhood no longer appears to be in a position to act with the level of impunity it had prior to July 2013[2].  The Tribunal stated that in the current environment, in which the Muslim Brotherhood has been severely cracked down upon, it would appear that it is open to the applicant to report any problems experienced at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood to the police and that they would likely act upon such complaints.  The applicant replied that he would be scared to report anything to the police.  He said that if he was stabbed or killed he wouldn’t have that opportunity. 

    [2] Refer footnote 1

35. The Tribunal asked the applicant what other problems he has had with Salafist’s as claimed in his application.  He said there was nothing else and that the only fear he has is from the Muslim Brotherhood who are still spying on him.  When asked how he knows this he said that his wife told him so when he was on holiday there.  The Tribunal noted that it had asked him previously whether his family had told him of any difficulties and he had only said they were worried about him.   

    Delay in coming to Australia

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had not come to Australia immediately after obtaining his visa [in] September 2012, pointing out that the three month delay in departure could suggest he was not fearing for his life in Egypt as claimed.  The applicant replied that he had to sell the stock from his  [shop] and his vehicle.  He confirmed that when he was coming and going from Cairo he leased out his shop.  The Tribunal pointed out that this did not seem to be a reason to continue to endanger his life and that he could have tasked somebody else with settling those affairs.  He said that he could not ask anybody else to deal with his personal matters and that his family had no understanding of his work.  He stated again that he wasn’t living in his local area at that time. 

2. The applicant was asked if he had any other fears of returning.  He said he did not and that he just needs a couple of months for things to settle and then he will go back. He said he is not working regularly here and that he wants to be able to work legally as a driver but cannot.

   Protection claims

3. The applicant has confirmed he was never personally a member of the Muslim Brotherhood but had commercial dealings with Muslim Brotherhood members through his driving business.   Country information indicates there are millions of Muslim Brotherhood members in Egypt[3] and the Tribunal considers it highly probable the applicant could have had such business dealings with Muslim Brotherhood members.    While the applicant claims he was privy to the political motives of these Muslim Brotherhood members, and that he shared their objective of unseating Mubarak, it is widely reported that there was popular support in Egypt, from many sectors of society, for the removal of Mubarak in 2011[4]. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant is at risk of being perceived to be a Muslim Brotherhood member or supporter by the Egyptian authorities for providing Muslim Brotherhood members with commercial services or for sharing a political view which was widely held by many Egyptians, at that time.  It follows that the Tribunal does not accept the applicant will be harmed in any way by the Egyptian authorities on this basis.

   [3] UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance, Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood, October 2014

   [4] DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 28 January 2014; DFAT Country Information Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015

4. Whereas the Tribunal accepts the applicant provided commercial services to Muslim Brotherhood members it is not satisfied, on the applicant’s oral evidence, that this led to the harm he claims.  As discussed with the applicant during the hearing, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s account of his arrest in 2010, which he claims was instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood, to be highly implausible.  In the first instance, the Tribunal considers the applicant has provided no logical explanation as to why the Muslim Brotherhood took such action against him or how he later learnt this was the case.  The Tribunal is not persuaded the Muslim Brotherhood would have had the applicant arrested due to him simply reducing the availability of his driving services to them.  Secondly, the applicant claims that when he was arrested he was interrogated about the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood.  As discussed with the applicant during the hearing, the Tribunal finds it illogical and implausible that the Muslim Brotherhood went to the trouble, or risk of having him arrested, just for the authorities to then interrogate the applicant about their own activities.   If the applicant was arrested in 2010 the Tribunal is not satisfied it was because of his dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood or orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  

5. The Tribunal considers the applicant has been untruthful about his claims to have been threatened with a knife, taken from his house by car to another premises and tortured by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  As discussed with the applicant during the hearing the Tribunal finds it difficult to believe that if such serious events had occurred he would not have mentioned it in his account to the Tribunal without prompting.  The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that he had not finished relating the events.  When first asked whether he had experienced other instances of harm, as noted above, the applicant thought long and hard before saying that people had come to his house once to ask his wife about him and once while he was there to ask why he was withdrawing his services.  The Tribunal believes the applicant had ample time at this point in the hearing to fully inform the Tribunal of these further attacks.   The Tribunal considers the applicant only acknowledged the further incidents after he was reminded of his statement of claims.    The Tribunal does not accept these claims.

6. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant fabricated the abovementioned claims in order to strengthen his application for a protection visa.   In view of his willingness to do this, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant has been truthful about his claim to have been verbally assaulted and threatened outside [a café] by members of the Muslim Brotherhood especially when this claim is considered in the context of the applicant’s stated dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Tribunal considers were purely commercial.  The Tribunal does not accept this claim.

7. Further, the Tribunal is of the view that if the above events had transpired and the applicant’s life was endangered as claimed, he would not have risked travelling back from Cairo to his family home on more than one occasion, where his whereabouts could easily be detected.  The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was living in hiding in the months prior to his departure to Australia or that he would have remained in Egypt for three months after being issued a visa to enter Australia given the circumstances.

8. In addition the Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s return visit to Egypt from March to June 2015.  Whereas the applicant stated his [child] was seriously ill at the time of his visit and that this is why he returned to Egypt instead of meeting his family in [another country], he has not substantiated this claim with any medical reports.  Other than stating his [child] had a high fever he did not explain the nature or severity of the illness.  In any event, the Tribunal considers the applicant could have delayed his travel until after his [child] had recovered in order to meet his family safely as planned in the [other country]. 

9. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant stated that while he was in Egypt he did not return to his village because his wife informed him that the Muslim Brotherhood are still spying on him.  As the Tribunal is not satisfied, for the reasons outlined above, that the applicant suffered any harm from the Muslim Brotherhood prior to his departure from Egypt in 2012 the Tribunal considers there was no reason he could not have returned to his village during the visit in 2015.   The Tribunal has not ruled out the possibility he did return to his village during the period from March to June 2015.    

10. In addition, the Tribunal notes the applicant also stated he did not move around a lot anywhere during his visit to Egypt as the country is still in turmoil.  However, during the hearing the applicant stated he resided in various different houses during his three month visit, including visits to his [siblings] in [City 1] some [distance] outside of Cairo.  This suggests to the Tribunal, contrary to the applicant’s claims, that he was indeed quite mobile during his visit.  Also, the applicant was accompanied by his wife and children during his visit which the Tribunal considers would have lessened his chances of moving around discreetly.   Based on his oral evidence, the applicant was not harmed in any way during his visit to Egypt from March to June 2015, despite what the Tribunal considers to be his relatively open movements, and the Tribunal considers this further supports its finding that the Muslim Brotherhood did not previously harm him or that he was forced into hiding to avoid being harmed.

11. In view of the above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was threatened or verbally or physically attacked by members of the Muslim Brotherhood in his village as claimed or that the Muslim Brotherhood are continuing to search for him in order to harm him.  

12. Based on his oral evidence the Tribunal accepts the applicant held opposing political views to the Mubarak administration.  However, the applicant has not provided any evidence of past harm for this reason and nor did he satisfy the Tribunal he fears harm in the future because of his political views.  The Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance the applicant will be harmed on return to Egypt due to his past or present political beliefs.

13. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a Muslim who consumes alcohol and that he would do so on return to Egypt.  However, as the applicant has stated, alcohol is available in venues throughout Egypt and he has not previously encountered any problems in Egypt for this reason.  Similarly, the applicant has not had charges of insulting the Prophet levelled at him before the alleged incident at [a café] and on his own account he does not, and would not, engage in such behaviour, in Egypt or anywhere.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant is generally opposed to any rise in Islamic conservatism in Egypt but based on his past behaviour and experience and the views he expressed at hearing, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance the applicant will be harmed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist’s or other Islamic fundamentalists because of his lifestyle or religious views and practices if he were to return to Egypt in the foreseeable future.

14. Further, the applicant’s statement at hearing that he would voluntarily return permanently to Egypt in three or four months indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant himself does not fear returning to Egypt for the reasons he claims.

15. For the above reasons, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Egypt. 

16. The Tribunal has also considered the alternative criteria in regards to complementary protection and has had regard to the ‘PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines’.  For the same reasons as set out above, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

17. In this respect the Tribunal notes that it does not accept the applicant will come to any significant harm because of his lifestyle or for his religious and political views if he is returned to Egypt.  The Tribunal also does not accept the applicant will come to any significant harm from the Egyptian authorities due to his past association with Muslim Brotherhood members in the course of his employment.   Nor does the Tribunal consider the applicant is at risk of any significant harm from individual members of the Muslim Brotherhood in his home village. 

18. If for some reason the applicant was arrested and detained for a week in 2010 the Tribunal does not accept this was because of his dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood.  In any event the alleged arrest occurred five years ago and at hearing the applicant did not provide any plausible reason as to why he should be arbitrarily arrested, detained or harmed by the Egyptian authorities on return to Egypt other than putting forward a general view that police in Egypt are incompetent and able to do as they please.

    CONCLUSIONS

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

    DECISION

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

    Tania Flood
    Member