1417614 (Refugee)

1417614 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3872 (14 December 2015)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1417614
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt
MEMBER:Tania Flood
DATE:14 December 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
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 14 December 2015 at 1:48pm
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, arrived in Australia [in] January 2014 as the holder of a Student visa (SV). He applied for a Protection visa [in] April 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] October 2014.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 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.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
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.
Summary of Claims
In his application for a Protection visa the applicant makes the following claims:
He left Egypt for fear of being attacked and killed by extremists for being a Copt. He has been attacked, physically and verbally, many times even after the overthrow of the Islamic Morsi Government because he was very vocal. Because of the threats he received his family asked him to move to Cairo but he believes he was followed and when he returned it was immediately known. Extremists attacked his house and destroyed their crops.
He believes his problems were heightened when he tried to defend the town church against it being burnt. His very visible involvement has made him a target of many extremists who have also accused him of helping other Christians remove the President and for hating Islam. Hence he has been targeted for his political ideas and for the fact he is a Christian. He believes his opinion will follow him everywhere in Egypt and will cause him harm.
Further, he believes that if called for the reserves, which the army has done before, he will definitely decline as he sees how the government has treated Christians in the past. As such he will put himself at the mercy of a court martial and he will be jailed and caused pain equal to that which he suffered during his compulsory army service.
Despite certain provisions in the Constitution, Copts are not protected. Although there are 10 million Christians in Egypt they are never represented accordingly in any government or in the army and certainly not the police. Copts receive degrading treatment in the courts and civilian councils. Christians are treated less than Muslims in every area including employment, advancement and other civil rights.
In a further statement dated [in] August 2014 the applicant expanded upon his claims as follows:
He is a [officer] in the Church and was known for his ability to preach to the congregation in Sunday school and explain the sermons. He was also known for being critical of the conversion of Christians to Islam and he was very vocal about his opposition to that. He used every opportunity to preach against it and against the marginalisation of Christians.
After he completed his studies he served his compulsory army service from [date] October 2010 to [date] December 2011. During this time he suffered at the hands of Muslim recruits. He was given the worst assignments, bombarded with requests to convert to Islam and when he refused he was treated badly by the soldiers and superiors.
When he completed his service and returned home he was even more vocal and preached to Christians in the church and outside about conversion to Islam. Despite being threatened he would never deviate from his belief.
On about [date] June 2012 he started working in Cairo for a Christian company because at that time opportunities for Christians in Muslim companies and government were extremely limited. Even in Cairo he continued with what he believed to be his calling. He went back to his home almost on a weekly basis and he was threatened and followed. Rocks were thrown at his house and his house was branded in writing to be a house of the Kuffar. His parents were scared to go to their work and they asked him not to come to town as often and to tone down his speech but he refused. He left his job in April 2013 because of pressure from his employers who were receiving threats because of him.
During his stay in Cairo he became involved with the “[name]” (sic) movement and started collecting signatures from his home town to support their endeavours. Of course that drew more attention to him at a time when the country was boiling but that did not stop him going to Tahir Square a couple of times. On one of those occasions he was seen by people from his hometown and when he returned home he was threatened again with death because of his support to the anti-Morsi movement.
[In] May 2013 the church in [suburb] was attacked and stores destroyed. While he was defending the church he and others were attacked and badly beaten.
[In] June 2013 he and his brother were irrigating their land when a group of people attacked and beat them. He was thrown into the well and only survived because other farmers came to their aid.
As a rule his family and other Christians donate to the [convent] and his uncle and he were making the collections to be delivered. [In] July 2013 they were driving a truck laden with donations to the convent when they were shot at. He was told by his father later that [religious leader] [name] called him and asked when they could come to show respect for the dead. They stayed at the convent for a day and then went back home.
Further disturbances occurred in their area [in] August 2013 involving Islamist attacks on Christians and he and his family were threatened again when standing in front of the church to protect it. He was pointed to and called by his name and so was his brother. They were told their time was coming. At that time they decided to try to find a way out of the country one by one in order not to attract attention. His brother went to [country 1] and then to [country 2] where he applied for protection. He contacted an agent to arrange a visa for him to come to Australia.
Although there is a new President and new Constitution the old fear and revenge is still thriving in Egypt, especially against Copts like him who were openly against the Muslim Brotherhood and extremism. In his view the ban against the Muslim Brotherhood has strengthened their resolve. Millions of extremists will simply not just evaporate.
He fears the blasphemy law as much as he fears the extremists because all it would take is for a couple of people to say that he cursed Islam or disrespected Islam by calling for Christians not to convert and he would be jailed and killed.
Further he fears the extreme persecution of Christians in all of the Middle East and he believes that the religious tensions in Egypt materialised after the extremists took over.
In a further submission dated [in] September 2014, the following additional points are made:
The applicant was able to preach to other Copts because of his extensive knowledge of religion and his drive and desire to help the church and fellow Copts. He studied hard and the priests trusted him to serve as a [officer]. For this he was targeted many times because his calls for Christians not to convert to Islam are seen as an offence by Muslims and the government for which he could be killed.
The reason he could not tone down his actions, as urged by his parents, is because it is in his nature to be outspoken. He could not stop himself and believes that people need to be made aware of the dangers around them. Further he was driven on by his own experiences in the Military where he was treated like an animal.
Tribunal hearing
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his family background and living arrangements in Egypt. He confirmed he was born in [suburb], Minya, Egypt. Prior to arriving in Australia he lived with a cousin for three to four weeks in Cairo and previously he had spent about five or six months working in Cairo. When asked when he was last in [suburb] the applicant said he returned home briefly for Christmas in 2013. He said his brother had previously departed Egypt [in late] 2013.
The applicant confirmed his parents, [and siblings] continue living in [suburb]. When asked about his family’s current situation he said they have suffered because of his profile in the church. He said his sister cannot go to school unless driven and persons acting for the [leader], [name], continue to inform his parents that they are still looking for him because he cursed and defamed the prophet and preaches Christianity. When asked if his parents have informed the police about this he said they have previously tried to seek police protection only to be humiliated.
Applicant’s experience in the Military
The applicant was asked why he would not answer a call to re-join the reserves if called up. He claims he was severely mistreated when undertaking his military service because he is a Christian. The applicant was asked why he thought he was singled out because country information indicates that all conscripts, not just Christians, face very poor conditions and treatment in Egypt[1]. The applicant explained that he has a [tertiary qualification], and ordinarily he should have been an officer of the reserves but because he is Christian he was given a lower rank. In addition he was constantly harangued to convert to Islam, called by a Muslim name, given degrading tasks such as cleaning the toilets and sewerage tanks. He said he was mocked, insulted and threatened with having the Christian crosses tattooed on his arm burnt off with acid. He said that the result of this treatment was he started to question his own religious beliefs. When he answered his critics by quoting from the Koran this angered the Muslim recruits and officers more. He said the harassment culminated in him being sexually assaulted twice. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had not mentioned this serious allegation previously and quite understandably he said it was because of his dignity. The applicant was adamant that he would never give himself up to such degrading treatment again.
[1] DIBP, Egypt: EGY16066 – Conditions of military service, 28 May 2014; DIBP, Egypt: EGY15949 – Military Conscription – Reservist Obligations – Penalties for Evaders, 28 March 2014; DIAC, Issues Paper, Egypt: Coptic Christians and Military Service, 16 April 2014
The Tribunal discussed the reservist military requirements with the applicant, namely that he could potentially be called up again for nine or ten years after completion of his military service in December 2011 or until he reaches age 30, in [years]’ time. Further the Tribunal noted country information which indicates that Egypt doesn’t place a strong emphasis on maintaining its reserves which suggests that there isn’t a great reliance on the reserves. Further the Tribunal advised that DFAT[2] reports that the military exempts individuals when it has an excess number of conscripts and that this is a common scenario[3]. The Tribunal stated that it would have to consider the likelihood of him being called up. The Tribunal pointed out that he has not been asked to re-join the reserves some four years after completing his service and therefore he may not be called up again. The applicant stated that reserves were called up at the time of the Maspero incident. The applicant’s representative said he is in possession of a document which indicates the applicant can be called up at any time until 2020. He undertook to provide the Tribunal with a translated copy of that document.
[2] DFAT Country Information Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015
[3] DIBP, Egypt: EGY16066 – Conditions of military service, 28 May 2014; DIBP, Egypt: EGY15949 – Military Conscription – Reservist Obligations – Penalties for Evaders, 28 March 2014; DIAC, Issues Paper, Egypt: Coptic Christians and Military Service, 16 April 2014
The Tribunal also discussed with the applicant the penalties for evading military service, namely a fine or up to three years prison[4], and advised that some sources suggest there is no information to support that Coptic Christians are subject to harsher penalties than Muslim men for refusing to complete military service. In such circumstances, the Tribunal advised it may just be a matter of a law of general application and therefore not discriminatory. The applicant said that if he has to face a military court he fears execution, as the military courts are known to be very strict.
[4] DIBP, Egypt: EGY15949 – Military Conscription – Reservist Obligations – Penalties for Evaders, 28 March 2014
In a post hearing submission dated [in] November 2015 the applicant’s representative provided a translated copy of the applicant’s military service certificate. This indicates that the applicant’s service in the reserve forces ends [in] December 2020. The submission reiterates the claims that the applicant will be harshly treated if called up to the reserves because he is Christian. Further it is reiterated that the applicant will not abide by any such calling for which he will be court martialled and jailed. Effectively, it is argued, this will be a death sentence for the applicant.
The applicant’s role in the Church
The applicant advised the Tribunal that after his experience in the military he felt the need to preach the word of God more strongly and to actively resist attempts by Muslims to convert Christians to Islam. When asked about his preaching activities he said he was a [officer] in the church and has studied extensively. He said he was responsible for working with children during the summer holidays and that he ran contests and other activities designed to implant the love of Christ in them. He said he also ran classes for girls at risk of conversion and was responsible for organising an annual meeting of the church and for the charity activities of a group called the [name]. When asked, the applicant said these activities were organised within the Church but that sometimes the activities took place in other church locations as well.
The Tribunal pointed out that the activities he mentioned all appear to have been carried out within the confines of the church and the Christian community and said it was therefore difficult to see why he was targeted for these activities. The applicant responded that he was not afraid to speak out about radicalism in public. He referred to being accosted and spat at on the street while walking with the Priest. He said when such acts occurred he vehemently objected and in arguments, when faced with critiques of Christianity, he would reply with quotes from the Koran. For this he said he was accused of swearing at the Koran. He said he publicly accused Islamists of causing all the troubles in Egypt and that he felt he had to speak up and preach the word of God to point out their mistakes.
When asked what the Priest thought of his behaviour he said that the clergy cannot say anything or answer back in such situations because they are afraid for the community. He said the Priest would try to calm him down but he just couldn’t stop. He said there was nothing more that could be done to hurt them at that stage and he just couldn’t remain silent.
The applicant was asked if he has ever had formal blasphemy charges levelled at him. He said that there was an occasion before the January 2011 revolution when he was asked to go to the police station and he wasn’t afraid to go there. He said he was accused of swearing at the prophet but he explained he did not. He said he was detained for two days and mocked and insulted but eventually released. He said he was told they were going to keep his name in their records but he was not charged or taken to court. During the hearing, the Tribunal referred to country information which confirms there has been an increase in the use of blasphemy-type laws since 2011, that Christians were disproportionately targeted but that reports indicate that most defamation of religion cases heard in courts since July 2013 are cases that began under the Morsi Government[5]. The Tribunal notes that since the hearing an updated report has been issued by DFAT dated 24 November 2015 which is referred to below in this regard. The Tribunal enquired why anything worse than what he described would happen to him now in such circumstances. The applicant said at that time it was intimidatory but that now, after everything that has happened, they are looking for any excuse to kill him. He said that there is money on his head but even so he cannot be quiet about his beliefs. He said the police will take accusations against him more seriously now.
[5] DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 28 January 2014; DIBP, Issues Paper, Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christians & State Protection, 3 September 2015

In a post hearing submission dated [in] November 2015 the applicant’s representative submits that the applicant holds his religion higher than anything else in his life, referring to his upbringing and role in the Church. It is submitted that the applicant shone as a preacher and as a defendant of the faith and as such became a target for Muslims who viewed him not only as a preacher but as a threat to Islam and an Islam hater. The applicant’s love of his religion is not limited by geography or area. He is a preacher and servant of the Church and will continue to be so until his death. Further, it is submitted that DFAT and the UK Home Office report that persons accused of preaching or proselytizing are of particular concern as Christians accused of such a “crime” can be unfairly treated by the government under the blasphemy law (91)(f) and are primary targets for zealous Muslims.
It is also submitted that the applicant should not be scared to voice his opinions or defend his religion peacefully, he should not be scared and subjected to death if a Muslim chooses to ask him about miracles and the bible, he should not be afraid of being killed for stating that Muslims are taking advantage of Christians and forcing them to convert and he should not be worried about his life and the lives of his family members because of his stance with Christian youth and advising them not to convert.
Move to Cairo and claimed instances of harm in 2013 on return to [suburb]
The applicant confirmed he moved to Cairo [in] June 2012 to search for employment. He said he secured a job with a Christian company almost immediately but that he was recommended for employment by his Priest in [suburb]. The applicant advised he rented a room in Cairo from a friend of his cousin.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he returned to [suburb] so often given the difficulties he faced there. The applicant advised that the bible says you have to stay in contact with those you serve and that he had a duty to continue his Ministry. The Tribunal asked why he could not perform such duties in Cairo. He said that it was important to him to continue the work he did with his church fellows in [suburb]. When the Tribunal indicated it thought it unlikely he returned every week as claimed he said he was able to do so because he only worked Monday to Thursday. He said the journey took on average three to four hours.
The applicant advised that he stopped working with the company [in] April 2013 after pressure was applied to his employer to terminate him. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it was difficult to understand how his aggressors knew how to locate his employer and that it doubted the Priest would have given them such information. The applicant explained that in his town it is a tradition to celebrate when something good happens to a person. He said when he secured a good job in Cairo his mother handed out drinks to celebrate and therefore everybody knew that he had gone to Cairo to work. The Tribunal questioned this because earlier the applicant had said that part of his work in the church involved teaching people not to share their secrets in order to protect themselves from forced conversion activities. The Tribunal said it was reasonable to conclude that he would have imparted these lessons to his own family. He said that he is the oldest son and that such actions are traditional.
The Tribunal pointed out that the applicant has claimed he worked in Cairo for a period of about ten months and that if his attackers knew where he worked they had ample opportunity to locate him and harm him in that time. The Tribunal indicated that if they were so intent on harming him they might have done more than apply pressure to his employer. The applicant said that he felt God was protecting him and that miraculous things do happen.
The applicant was asked about the events that happened after he ceased working in Cairo. The applicant provided a similar and consistent account of the events outlined in his written claims. Namely that he was beaten [in] May 2013 while defending his church; that he and his brother were attacked [in] June 2013 on their farm and he was thrown into a well and that he and his uncle were fired upon [in] July 2013 while delivering donations to the convent. He said that they knew the [religious leader] was behind the last event and couldn’t go to the police. He said that when further attacks happened against Christians in August 2013 which required them to defend the church again, he and his brother were singled out and named and threatened. He said they knew then that things could get much worse and he felt responsible to get his brother out of the country first. When asked why he did not go together with his brother he said he was responsible for his parents as the oldest son and that it wasn’t easy to leave them.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what happened between August 2013 and his date of departure from Egypt, noting he arrived in Australia [in] January 2014. The applicant advised he was moving between the convent, his former University and Cairo but didn’t stay in one place for too long. He said after he was named he left [suburb] for good and only went back one last time at Christmas 2013.
Activities in Cairo
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he encountered any difficulties from Muslim extremists while living in Cairo and he replied that he did. He said that he connected with an anti-Morsi movement and sometimes went out with other young men to collect signatures and to attend demonstrations in Tahir square. He said that on some of those occasions he was involved in arguments and scuffles with pro-Morsi people because he was vocal about his views. He said he was never injured because people generally intervened to stop the disturbance.
The applicant was asked why he could not return to live in Cairo because country information suggests that the sectarian violence which peaked in 2013 had largely calmed down and there are Christian areas within Cairo where people are reportedly living quite peaceably due to a greater security presence in such urban areas[6]. Further the Tribunal pointed out that the applicant is a young, single, educated man who was able to secure a job in Cairo before coming to Australia. The applicant replied that all his family are in his birth place and that in any event he will never be quiet wherever he lives in Egypt. He said that in the end he will be persecuted for defaming Egypt’s religious laws. He said that if two people report him he will be sued and charged for defaming religion. He said this is because if someone questions his holy book he answers back with quotes from the Koran. He confirmed he has studied the Koran because of everything that has happened to him. He stressed he will continue to defend his views to his last breath. He is a proud Christian and will always preach the bible.
[6] DFAT Thematic Report, Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015
The applicant said that his opponents will get to him wherever he is and that even though Muslim Brotherhood members have been detained the rest of their followers are still at large. He said, if anything, their resolve for retribution is even higher now. The applicant denied the security situation for Copts has changed regardless of a change in power.
The Tribunal indicated that the Sisi government appears to have taken a very hard stance on security and law and order and that the police are attempting to re-establish their presence in places like Cairo[7]. The applicant said that while it might look good from the outside, inside everything is still the same.
[7] DFAT Thematic Report, Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015
Delay in applying for a Protection visa
The Tribunal questioned why the applicant only applied for protection [in] April 2014 when he had arrived in Australia [in] January 2014. The applicant said he was away from his family for the first time and didn’t know anybody in Australia. He said he had to find a church and when he spoke to the Priest he decided to apply for protection. The Tribunal pointed out that he had earlier spoken about his brother applying for protection in [country 2] and that therefore he seemed to know this avenue was available to him. He reiterated it was because he didn’t know anybody here and it took some time to understand how the system works.
In closing the applicant advised of the problems faced by Copts attempting to repair destroyed churches, and that the Coptic Pope is under a lot of pressure to submit to certain policy directions because of fears for the Christian community. He said that although Christians supported Sisi nothing has changed until now.
Is there a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Egypt?
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration.
In questioning the applicant in relation to his experiences in the military, his religious background and practices, his claimed multiple instances of harm and his fears of returning to Egypt, the Tribunal notes that the applicant was extremely passionate about his religious views and his services to the church. The applicant was able to speak in considerable detail about his role and activities in the church and with only minor omissions was consistent in the detail about the numerous problems he encountered as a result. The Tribunal did not find the applicant’s behaviour contrived and generally found his evidence to be genuine and plausible in the circumstances. The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness who is genuinely fearful of returning to Egypt.
Regarding his military service, a DIAC Issues Paper dated 16 August 2013, indicates that conditions are poor for all military conscripts in Egypt and that Copts, while still being able to practice their religion, may face personal discrimination and mistreatment while undertaking military service. A variety of news reports referenced in the DIAC paper refer to instances of Copts in the military being relentlessly pressured, including through beatings and torture, to convert to Islam and to being abused and beaten for such things as having Christian tattoos on their arms and for proselytising. It is reported that those that do suffer discrimination or other mistreatment have few options for recourse[8].
[8] DIAC, Issus Paper, Egypt: Coptic Christians and Military Service 16 August 2013; DIBP Egypt: EGY16066 – Conditions of Military Service, 28 May 2014
The Tribunal accepts the applicant is outspoken and steadfast about his religious beliefs and based on the country information before it has no reason to disbelieve the accounts given of his treatment during military service. In fact, the Tribunal considers the country information corroborates the events he claims happened. The Tribunal accepts the applicant was discriminated against and mistreated by fellow conscripts and officers while undertaking his military service. In view of his experiences, and on the strength of his oral evidence in this respect, the Tribunal also accepts that the applicant will not comply with any requirement to perform future reservist duties if called upon to do so. However, for the reasons outlined below, the Tribunal has not found it necessary to consider the consequences of the applicant not doing so.
The applicant claims to be a committed and active Coptic Christian. The Tribunal notes that the Delegate found the applicant’s claims regarding his religious activities to be completely fictitious and overly fanciful and that he didn’t undertake any role for the church beyond normal practices. The Delegate appeared to form this view despite being provided with letters from Priests suggesting otherwise or providing any explanation as to why this supporting evidence was not given weight.
The Tribunal has before it letters of support from the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt and Australia confirming his role in the church and participation in church activities. These include two letters from the Priest for the [name] Patriarchate in Egypt which attest to his role as a [officer] and his zealous service to the church in Egypt, as well as two letters from Fathers [name] and [name] from the [name] Coptic Orthodox Church in [Australia] which support his regular attendance at Church and involvement in youth meetings. They also confirm that the applicant is a [officer] in their parish. In addition, the applicant has provided various photographs of himself, dressed in church robes alongside what appears to be other church elders.
The applicant has claimed throughout that he is a long standing [officer] in the Coptic Church. The supporting letters referred to above indicate that this is the case. Further, these letters support that the applicant has been active in organising youth affairs within the church as claimed and described in detailed at hearing. On the basis of the supporting evidence before it, and on the strength of his oral evidence, the Tribunal has formed a different opinion to the Delegate. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims of being a [officer] in the church and being actively involved in organising youth and other activities in the church in Egypt and Australia
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s participation in church activities in Australia is a continuation of his religious practice in Egypt. The Tribunal has not formed the view that the applicant has engaged in this conduct for the sole purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee. Therefore the Tribunal is not required to disregard his conduct in Australia pursuant to s.91(R)(3) of the Act. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a committed Coptic Christian who plays an active role in church activities both in Egypt and Australia.
The applicant claims that his experiences in the military, including being constantly pressured to convert to Islam and criticised for his religious ideals, served to deepen his faith and conviction to uphold and defend the Christian church in Egypt. Again, the Tribunal considers this conviction is supported by the abovementioned letters provided by the Coptic Church in Egypt and Australia. As noted, the applicant spoke with fervour at hearing about his religious beliefs and zealous conviction that Coptic Christians ought to be afforded the right to uphold and speak publicly about their religion without harassment or coercion in Egypt. The Tribunal is persuaded that the applicant holds his Christianity in high regard and that it is central to his identity. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that he was and is driven to speak out about his religious beliefs, to combat criticisms of his faith, and to fight for the rights of Christians in Egypt. The Tribunal concedes that such claims, on face value, are difficult to understand in such circumstances, however the Tribunal is persuaded that the applicant holds very strong views about his religion.
The Delegate also found that the applicant did not come to the negative attention of any extremists in Egypt. In forming this view the Delegate suggested that the applicant would likely have encountered more serious acts of harm if his claims were true and that his returning to [suburb] from Cairo on a regular basis undermined his claims that his life was at risk there. As indicated at hearing, the Tribunal also had concerns about the applicant’s behaviour in this respect, however, on forming the above conclusion in regard to the strength of the applicant’s religious convictions and commitment to his church service, the Tribunal is persuaded that the applicant was compelled to return to his home town to continue his church service with his local community, despite the risks. The Tribunal accepts the applicant continued to do this until such time as his security situation worsened. In view of the fact the applicant claims to have been making plans to depart Egypt, and his claimed responsibility for his parents as the eldest son, the Tribunal does not find in improbable that he returned to [suburb] on the last occasion in December 2013.
The applicant has provided a consistent account throughout of the harm he has encountered from Islamist’s as a result of his outspoken views about Christianity. The Tribunal notes that the applicant is from [suburb], in Minya, Egypt. As noted in DFAT’s Thematic Report on Egyptian Copts[9], Egypt is a socially conservative country and the Sunni majority is dominant and incontestable. Coptic presence in public life is accepted as long as it does not upset this social order. Further, DFAT notes that the majority of communal tensions and violent incidents involving Copts in recent years, fuelled in part by growing Islamist sentiment, have taken place in Upper Egypt. Minya, which has a large Coptic population, high concentration of Islamist activists, high rate of poverty and low rate of education, has been particularly notable as a location for communal tensions.
[9] DFAT Thematic Report, Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015
According to the UK Home Office, Christians in general are not at risk of persecution or ill-treatment in Egypt and the Tribunal considers this view to be supported by DFAT. However, in areas outside the main cities, where Islamists have a strong foothold, and where there have been attacks on Christians, against their property, businesses and churches, the UK Home Office concludes that Christians will generally be at risk, particularly as the state is generally unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. Additionally, people falling within certain risk categories, including those accused of proselytising where the accusation is serious and not casual, will generally be able to show a real risk of persecution.[10]
[10] UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance, Egypt: Christians, 14 July 2014
There is no statutory prohibition on conversion from Islam to other religions in Egypt and DFAT assesses that a person who converts to another religion from Islam would not normally be harassed or monitored by Egyptian authorities. However, officials, including courts, interpret Sharia as forbidding Muslims from converting to another religion and refuse to recognise such conversions. Significantly, the report also notes that any attempt to proselytise would likely be resisted by societal elements, particularly in rural and more conservative areas, and perhaps violently.[11]
[11] DFAT Country Information Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015.
The USCIRF reports that neither the Constitutional Declaration nor the civil or penal code prohibits proselytising however the government imposes legal penalties on activities related to proselytizing by non-Muslims, including ‘disrupting social cohesion’. According to USCIRF non-Muslim minorities generally refrain from proselytizing to avoid legal penalties and extra-legal repercussions from authorities and local Islamists.[12]
[12] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report 2013
Articles 98(f), 160 and 161 of the Egyptian Criminal Code (Law 58-1937) prohibit citizens from ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions or inciting sectarian strife. The law applies to all Egyptians and all recognised religions, but in practice disproportionately affects individuals accused of defaming Islam. It was put to the applicant at hearing that while there had been an increase in the use of blasphemy-type laws since 2011 and that Christians were disproportionately targeted, that since July 2013 most of the cases heard had begun under the Morsi Government. However, the Tribunal notes that DFAT’s latest country information report of 24 November 2015 indicates that since the July 2013 military intervention, the Sisi Government has continued to enforce (and even step up) measures to counter atheism, blasphemy and dissent. The report also notes that in the Egyptian judicial system, members of the public can make accusations about other people directly to authorities and DFAT assesses there has been a rise in accusations of defamation of religion since 2011, partly owing to the salience of religious issues in politics and public life both during the Morsi government and afterwards. Most cases have arisen in Upper Egypt. Credible human rights sources have told DFAT that those accused of blasphemy rarely have an adequate right of defence, and are generally convicted. Penalties include fines and imprisonment ranging from six months to five years.[13]
[13] DFAT Country Information Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015.

Having found the applicant to be a credible witness, and given the country information and the nature of the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has been harassed, physically beaten, and threatened with further harm by Islamists in [suburb] on numerous occasions in 2013 for the reasons claimed. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has been accused of defaming Islam in the past, as a result of him quoting from the Koran to Muslim extremists and that his strongly held and publicly voiced views about conversion could be seen as proselytizing by members of the Muslim community. Further, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant preaches the virtues of Christianity both within and outside the confines of the Coptic Church. Whereas the applicant was not seriously harmed in the past for accusations of defamation made against him, in view of his oral evidence and the country information referenced above, the Tribunal accepts that further accusations against him of this nature would likely be met with worse repercussions. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s aggressors in [suburb] are likely to have a continuing interest in harming him for these reasons.
Whereas any action taken against the applicant by the government for defaming Islam or proselytizing could be regarded on the one hand as the application of general laws in Egypt, and therefore not necessarily persecutory, the Tribunal considers, based on the country information before it, that there are both legal and extra-legal repercussions from local Islamists for blasphemy and proselytising. The applicant claims he is unable to seek state protection against such extra-legal repercussions because of his religion.
In this regard, the Tribunal notes the Egyptian National Police are responsible for law enforcement nationwide and various sources, including DFAT[14] indicate that police investigative skills remain poor and they suffer from shortfalls in training and equipment. While the Tribunal acknowledges the security situation has reportedly changed somewhat since 2013, and that police in urban areas are likely able to provide more effective protection, DFAT nevertheless notes that the level of police presence in rural areas is generally less than in the cities and as a consequence Copts are less safe in these areas. Whereas DFAT assesses under the Sisi Government the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsible to Coptic grievances, societal discrimination may continue to impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.
[14] USDOS, 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Egypt, 27 February 2014; DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015
The Tribunal also notes a USDOS report in 2013 states that there were credible reports that security forces failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities. Further, the UK Home Office’s report, Country Information Guidance, Egypt: Christians, also notes “In MS (paragraph 151(1)) the Upper Tribunal found that there was inadequate state protection for Coptic Christians”.[15] Other human rights commentators, such as Minority Rights Group and Human Rights Watch also agree that the Egyptian security forces have failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Copts in recent years.[16]
[15] UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians 14 July 2014
[16] Minority Rights Group International 2014; Human Rights Watch 2015, World Report 2015 – Egypt, 29 January.
The applicant claims that when his family tried to seek protection in [suburb] they were humiliated by the police. Taking into account the applicant is from [suburb], Minya, which has seen high levels of sectarian violence in recent years, and given the conservative, and increasingly Islamist sentiment which currently prevails in Egypt, and which could reasonably be assumed is reflected in the police force, the Tribunal finds this claim to be plausible. In light of the applicant’s personal experience and in view of the country information referenced above, which the Tribunal considers does cast some doubt upon the willingness of police to protect Copts from attacks by Muslim extremists, the Tribunal accepts that adequate state protection is not available to the applicant in [suburb] against the harm feared there from non-state actors.
The Tribunal is satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will be harmed by Muslim extremists in [suburb] and that the harm, including severe physical abuse, would amount to serious harm. The Tribunal also considers that the serious harm which the applicant faces involves systematic and discriminatory conduct as required by s.91R(1)(c) of the Act, in that it is deliberate or intentional and involves selective harassment. Further, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s religion is the essential and significant reason for the persecution.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant could safely relocate to another area in Egypt to avoid serious harm but has concluded that this is not possible in the circumstances.
As noted, DFAT assesses that by and large Copts enjoy a greater level of security in urban centres such as Cairo and Alexandria, which have large socio economically and culturally diverse populations which generally co-exist peaceably. As noted above, DFAT also reports that there is some evidence that since July 2013 the police have sought to restore its presence and authority somewhat and a more substantial police presence in urban areas appears to allow Copts to live in greater security. The Tribunal discussed this information with the applicant at hearing but he contended that sooner or later he would be located wherever he lives in Egypt as he will never stop defending and advocating his religion and that this will place him at risk of harm anywhere in Egypt.
On the basis of his religious convictions, and oral testimony, the Tribunal believes the applicant will publicly defend Christianity, including challenging the views of the Koran and Islamists and involve himself him church services designed to retain its membership of youth and others at risk of converting to Islam, wherever he resides. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant considers this to be an integral part of his religious practice and that he would be unable to stop himself from involvement in controversy despite the risks involved. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant cannot be expected to cease involvement in his religious beliefs or his practice of the faith in order to avoid persecution.
The Tribunal considers the country information referred to above regarding blasphemy and proselytising applies to the whole country and if the applicant is again accused of such, the Tribunal considers there is a real chance he will encounter similar difficulties to that experienced in [suburb]. Indeed the Tribunal notes on the applicant’s oral evidence that he was involved in some altercations, albeit not seriously harmed, arising from his religious views in the time he previously resided in Cairo. The Tribunal considers there is a real chance that the applicant will be seriously harmed by Islamists for expressing his religious beliefs wherever he resides in Egypt. Despite there being signs of a recently improved protection environment in Cairo and Alexandria for Copts, the Tribunal is not satisfied, based on the balance of opinion before it, that Coptic Christians, and more specifically the applicant with his religious profile, can yet avail themselves of state protection against harm from non-state actors in such circumstances.
For the above reasons the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Egypt due to his religion. 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) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Tania Flood
Member

[2015] AATA 3872

14 December 2015

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness