1417727 (Refugee)

1417727 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3207 (21 January 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1417727
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt
MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt
DATE:21 January 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Statement made on 21 January 2016 at 9:31am

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 is a citizen of Egypt applied for the visa [in] March 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] October 2014.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 January 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted in English.
THE RELEVANT LAW
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.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Egypt for reasons of religion.
The applicant has provided written and oral evidence to the Department and the Tribunal. The claims contained in this evidence are summarised below.
The applicant is a [age] year old single man of Coptic Christian religion from Alexandria in Egypt. He was a [university] student prior to his departure for Australia [in] January 2014. He lived in an area which he described during the hearing as middle to lower class where the population includes some highly educated people and some poor people. The majority of people in the area are Muslims, but there are also a number of Christian families. There is a least one church in the area and also some mosques, including one located in a back street known to be attended by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least by people sharing their views. The applicant was on friendly terms with a number of Muslims in his local area, although they were not close friends.
The applicant’s father is deceased. His mother has recently returned to live in Alexandria after spending most of her working life in [Country 1]. She lives in an apartment in Alexandria some distance from the home she and the applicant previously shared. The applicant has [siblings], a [sibling] who lives in Australia and a [sibling] who lives and works in [Country 1]. He visited his [sibling] in Australia for about three weeks in September 2010.
The applicant claims that he is committed to practicing his faith and regularly attended church in Egypt and Australia. He has provided a Certificate of Services from the [Patriarchate] which states that he regularly attended mass and took communion while in Egypt and a letter from the [name] Parish in [suburb] which states that he had attended church there since arriving in Australia.
The applicant claims that, in addition to attending church he worked as volunteer helping villagers in remote areas. In his written statement he said that he helped to distribute food to poor and needy people, but stopped when he began to work transporting children to Sunday school and church. During his interview with the delegate he said that he had stopped doing this work about three years earlier (in mid-2011) because it was too difficult to make weekly trips to remote areas while studying. At the hearing he again said that he made weekly trips to remote to distribute food and blankets, but stopped in January 2011. He said that he had also done some tutoring in maths and reading and some spiritual work in remote areas.
The applicant claims that he was involved in transporting children to and from Sunday school and to other church activities after he stopped working in remote areas. At the hearing he said that he spent the entire day working with children and claimed that he spoke to them about religious matters. He also claimed that he had worked as a [tutor] in a hall used by the church for this purpose. Most of the children who attended these classes were Christians, but some were Muslims.
When asked at the hearing, the applicant said that he had faced some minor problems while President Mubarak was in power, but no physical harm. For example, he argued with a lecturer at university who said that the bones were formed first in the human body then the flesh because this was what the Koran said. I observed that it was my understanding that Egyptian [professionals] generally received proper training and it seemed unlikely that this would have been taught in a [university] course. The applicant agreed that [professionals] were usually properly trained, but maintained that his lecturer had made this comment and some students had supported him. The applicant also said that in late 2010 while working in remote areas he had befriended a Muslim woman who asked if she could have one of the blankets he was distributing. He spoke to her on a number of occasions about Christianity. His purpose was not to convert her, but to explain his faith. The woman’s son lived in the same area as the applicant in Alexandria and accused him of attempting to convert his mother and told him to stop. The applicant continued to visit the woman but stopped talking to her about religion. I noted that the applicant had not mentioned this claim previously. He said that this was correct, but he had not seen it as important.
In the written statement provided with his initial application the applicant said that he had first experienced problems in February 2011 following the overthrow of President Mubarak. He said that he had ceased serving in the church at that time due to security disruption, but returned to church after the situation improved when he was in the [number] year of his studies ([year]). He began to face problems again after the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in June 2012. He said that the area in which he lived was a central location for protests. There were demonstrations every Friday at prayer time and people at the local Mosque began to broadcast statements that Christians were infidels and should be punished.
At the hearing the applicant said that during the time that President Morsi was in power, there was an increase of verbal insults in his area, but no violence. He said that leaders of the Mosque in the backstreet increased their extremist and anti-Christian statements and some Muslims made comments when he was helping to transport the children such as “here comes the Jesus driver”. On one occasion he was confronted by the father of a Muslim student in his tutoring class because he had chastised the boy for not behaving in a Christian manner when he became involved in a fight with another student. The applicant had not been aware that the boy was a Muslim until confronted by his father. He had no further encounters with the boy’s father.
The applicant claims that he began to face significant problems related to his religion in May 2013, shortly before Morsi lost power. In his written submission to the Department, he said that members of the Muslim Brotherhood from the Mosque in the backstreet tried to persuade him to convert to Islam. To begin with they spoke to him tenderly, but he ignored them so they started to insult Christianity. He did not respond and the men believed that he was agreeing with them. Eventually he spoke up, saying that he would not convert, that Jesus was the son of God, that Mohammad was not a prophet and that God had given people freedom of religion and expression. He gave them evidence that Christ was the son of God and that nobody could go to Heaven if they did not believe in him. He believed that if he showed the strength of his beliefs they would stop trying to convert him and leave him alone. However, told him he would go to hell and that they would not leave him alone.
The applicant repeated these during the Department interview. When asked, he said that he had not been charged with any offence in relation to the comments he had made.
At hearing the applicant said that he had spoken to these men when they bumped into each other in the street on several occasions in the weeks before Morsi was overthrown. He said that he knew a number of the men by sight. One of them was the son of the Muslim woman he had spoken to while distributing aid in remote areas. Many of them had not been extremists in the past, but they had become more radical when the situation in Egypt changed. He did not know whether they belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood, but from the way they dressed and their behaviour he believed that they supported the group. To begin with the applicant and the men had reasonable discussions about religion, but later the men began to harass him and mock Christianity. After this he responded saying that he did not believe in Allah as God or Mohammad as his Prophet.
The applicant said that he did not face any physical or other serious harm immediately after this confrontation because it was shortly before the removal of President Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood supporters were involved in demonstrations and following the overthrow of President Morsi pro-Muslim Brotherhood people from the applicant’s area and all of the country were bussed to Cairo to demonstrate and participate in sit-ins. The applicant said that his problems began in August 2013, after the pro-Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in Cairo were dispersed and the violence against Christians, such as burning of churches, had begun.
At the hearing the applicant said that he was never involved in demonstrations in Egypt, but he had spontaneously joined the crowds celebrating in the street when the military issued Morsi an ultimatum calling for him to resign on 30 June 2013 and when the military took power on 3 July 2013. He said that most people in his area, Muslims and Christians alike, participated in these celebrations.
The applicant claims that he was spat at and beaten in the street by Muslims in late August 2013. He said that he believed that he was being monitored by people from a nearby Mosque and that the attack occurred when he was approached by a [Sheikh] from this Mosque and then attacked by three men who accused him of defaming Islam. During the hearing he said that this attack occurred shortly after he was dropped off near his home by the mini-bus which was used to transport Christian children to Church. He said that the bearded man who spat in his face had told him to stop the work he was doing. The applicant knew the man by sight, but did not know his name. Another three men quickly joined in. They accused the applicant of defaming Islam and began to kick him. They left him lying in the street. Some Muslim shopkeepers who he knew saw him lying in the street and offered to help him, but he managed to make his own way home.
During his interview with the delegate the applicant said that he had treated his own injuries following this attack and had not reported it to the police because he feared that he would be accused of degrading religion and that he might be executed at the police station and nobody would know his fate. He said that he feared this might happen because the police were Muslim and might believe that he had insulted Islam.
During the hearing the applicant said he had not reported this attack to the police as everything was in turmoil and the police had been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and it would have been dangerous to make such a report. I advised the applicant that it was my understanding that the Muslim Brotherhood had targeted police stations during this time because they had been involved in breaking up Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations. The applicant said that this was correct as most members of the police force had been there since the time of Mubarak, but maintained that a few members of the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the police force which could have placed him at risk if he reported that he had religious problems.
Following this the applicant stopped the work he was doing for the Church and stayed at home for a while. He believed that the incident had caused by the earlier verbal altercation with the Muslim men who had tried to convert him. He said that there had been a misunderstanding and he realised he should not have expressed his views so vehemently or clearly. However, he thought the men would see this attack as his punishment and he did not really expect that he would face any more problems.
A few days later some men came to the applicant’s apartment, knocked at the door, called him an infidel and demanded that he open the door or face punishment. In his submissions to the Department the applicant said that he was afraid to go to the door because he feared he would be killed. At the hearing he explained that the men were outside an iron door which led to a section of the building which included the door to his apartment and to some other apartments. He could hear the men knocking, calling him by name and threatening to kill him if he did not open the door. He said that he believed that they only intended to frighten him as they could have broken in if they had wanted to. None of his neighbours commented on the attack so he believes they were either away or did not hear what was happening.
Following this the applicant became more fearful. A few days later he left his apartment and was walking to his car which was parked in its usual spot in front of the building. One of the men from the group which had accosted him in the street was waiting for him in the street and slapped him on the face. The applicant ran to his car. As he was driving away the man threw stones at the car and the applicant could hear him shouting, but could not understand what he was saying.
[In] September 2013 the applicant found a warning letter on the front window of his car. The note said that this was his last warning. At the hearing he said that there was nothing specific in the note about what he should do or stop doing and nothing about the consequences of refusing to comply with the note. A neighbour told him that the note had been placed there by someone from the Mosque.
[In] September 2013 the applicant found that his car had been badly damaged during the night. In the written statement provided with his protection visa application the applicant said that when he was inspecting his damaged car he was approached by someone who told him that he would be smashed like the car if he did not convert to Islam. Following this the applicant spoke to his lawyer who was a fellow Christian. His lawyer arranged to make a report to the police on the applicant’s behalf.
The applicant has provided a copy and a translation of this report. The language is somewhat confusing, but in essence it states that the applicant’s car had been vandalised and his neighbours had told him that the attack was carried out by three young men from the Muslim Brotherhood who had attacked the car because there was a cross hanging from the mirror. It also states that the applicant had been informed by witnesses that the men had threatened to attack the applicant and his place of residence if he did not obey them. It adds that there was no dispute between the applicant and the people who attacked the car and describes the incident as a revenge attack on him and Copts in general in the area. The report also states that it was reported that there had been a previous attempt to storm the applicant’s home, but the would-be attackers could not get in.
During the hearing the applicant said that while he was inspecting the damage to his car someone who he had never seen before had threatened him, saying that this time it was his car which had been attacked, but the next time it would be him. He said that there was a visible cross in his car, but he believed that it was a targeted attack as it was well known that it was his car.
Later in the hearing I noted that the police report provided by the applicant appeared to suggest that his car had been attacked because it contained religious symbols, not because anyone was targeting him personally. He agreed that the report appeared to suggest this, but said his car was the only one attacked despite the fact that other cars had religious symbols which indicated it was a targeted attack. He said that when he had raised this error with the lawyer who made the report the lawyer told him that he informed the police that the applicant believed it was a targeted attack, but the police officer had told him that it was not possible to mention this in the report. The applicant first said he did not know why the police had refused to include this information, but then added that his lawyer had told him the police had said that if this information was included the case would have had to be sent to a higher level which would have been problematic. Later the applicant added that the police had told his lawyer that they could not include information about motivation because this could spark religious problems. I observed that this appeared to be at odds with the applicant’s earlier statement that he did not know why the police had not accurately recorded the complaint made by his lawyer. The applicant responded that his lawyer had told him that the police had told him that they were not following up such cases at that time. I observed that it was my understanding that there had been a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood around that time which indicated that they did pursue cases involving extremists. The applicant said that most Egyptians hated the Muslim Brotherhood but they started by targeting the leaders.

The applicant claims that he was so fearful following the attack on his car that despite being only [number] months away from graduating, he stopped his studies and began to consider fleeing to Australia. He said that he was not able to travel immediately because he required a clearance from the military under the terms of his deferral of compulsory military service and he knew this would not be granted until the university break at the end of the year.
To avoid further encounters the applicant claims he only went out at night or during the time of prayer for Muslims. He was very distressed about his situation and consulted a psychologist who prescribed anti-depressants. In support of these claims he provided a copy of a medical certificate dated [in] January 2014 from [name] from the [name] Hospital in [location] which states that he was receiving treatment for PostTraumatic Stress Disorder.
The applicant said that he avoided any further problems until December 2013 when he was followed when he drove to the university to collect some documents. During the hearing he said that he thought he recognised the man in the car as one of the group who had been harassing him, but he could not be sure. However, the car followed him even when he turned left and right and drove down back streets, so he knew he was being followed. He believed that this indicated that he was still of interest to the people who had attacked him earlier.
The delegate advised the applicant of information which indicated that while there had been an upsurge in the level of violence against Christians in mid-2013 following the overthrow of President Morsi this was relatively short-lived and that Christians were not generally at risk of harm in Egypt and could seek protection from the police if needed. The applicant disagreed with this. He said that while the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood had been arrested there were 10 million members of the group in Egypt and while the government was against the Muslim Brotherhood there was nothing they could do. While the leaders of the group had been detained, the grassroots supporters were in the street and it was those people he feared. The members of the Muslim Brotherhood in his area had not been arrested and he feared that they might hurt him or kill him.
The delegate asked the applicant why he had not relocated within Egypt, for example Cairo where he would have been safe and able to complete his degree. The applicant it was dangerous in Cairo and it would be difficult and dangerous for him to try and relocate his studies to Cairo. He said that he believed that the Muslim Brotherhood would be determined to harm him and they would carry out their threat. The delegate asked why they had not carried out their threats while he was still in Egypt. The applicant responded that the people who had targeted him were also busy with their own lives and perhaps feared that if they broke into his home there might have been more problems. He remained in hiding to avoid these problems.
At the hearing I advised the applicant it was my understanding that there was spike in violence in Egypt during the time he claimed to have been harassed and attacked in mid-2013 and this violence included burning of churches and attacks on some Christians. However, this violence lessened significantly following about September 2013 and that currently, while there were still outbreaks sectarian violence in some areas, most Christians, were not at risk of harm because of their religion, particularly those living in urban middle class areas. I noted that according to his own evidence Muslims and Christians in his local area generally got on well together and he personally had some Muslim friends in his neighbourhood. I observed that in those circumstances I had difficulty understanding why he would have ceased his studies and remained in virtual hiding from August 2013 until he departed Egypt in January 2014 and why he would be at risk of harm if returned to Egypt.
The applicant said that he agreed that the tone of violence in Egypt had decreased and extremists did not have the same power as they had in the past. He said that it was his understanding that the al Sisi government was doing a great job of eliminating the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they and other extremist groups remained active throughout the country underground at the grassroots level. He said that people who had threatened him in the past might be in jail or might have left the area, he did not know. He later stated that he believed that there was only a very small chance that these people would harm him if he returned or that someone else would attack him because they were aware of what had happened in the past. He said that many Christians still lived normal lives in Egypt, attending school and church. He said he was confident that if he returned to Egypt he could continue to practice his religion. He said that he did not fear that he would face problems just because he was a Christian or because of his service in remote areas or his work with children. He believed that the problem was in the way that he spoke about his religion which always got him in trouble as he was and would be outspoken and “bubbly” in the community.
I observed that it was not my understanding that he would face problems by providing service and speaking to other Christians and added that it was my understanding that many Christians were committed to their faith. The applicant said that he was different because “he never shuts up” and has no barriers. I noted that he had previously stated that during his discussions with the Muslims in the street who wanted to convert him he had initially restrained himself and the discussions had been respectful and that he had regretted the fact that he had finally responding aggressively after the men insulted Christianity, which appeared to suggest that he was not likely to be outspoken in a way would cause problems. The applicant said that he would normally restrain himself but he could not always do that.
I asked the applicant to clarify why he believed that the nature of his service to his Church would place him at risk of harm if he returned to Egypt. For example, was he suggesting that he would get into a discussion or an argument with someone which would result in him being accused of defaming Islam. The applicant responded that it did not have to be a discussion or an argument about religion, as discussions and arguments can be controlled. It could relate to his service which would be like the service he had done previously. I asked him to clarify what it was about his service that would cause problems. He said that service could involve working with Muslims, providing social assistance. I observed that I had seen nothing which suggested that this would cause problems and asked him again to clarify why he thought he would face problems. He said anyone could do social and welfare work but he would do this work as a service to God and to follow the Bible. I asked if he was suggesting that he go out and attempt to convert Muslims or become involved in activities that Muslims might find insulting. He said that he would not do this. I advised him that I was having difficulty understanding exactly what it was that he believed would cause him problems in Egypt, unless it was that he might lose his temper and make comments seen as insulting. The applicant said that he had never intended to insult anyone; he had just wanted to defend his religion. I asked again for clarification of what it was about his future service that he believed would cause him problems. He said that he related everything back to his beliefs and he would be outspoken and speak from his heart. He said that he would promote his religion in a non-forceful way. He would try to explain his religion in the hope that people may feel that they wanted to learn more. However, he would only introduce these things into his work and conversations if people appeared to be interested or receptive. He would not approach people who were extremists or radicals.
I noted that according to his evidence the problems he had experienced in the past had related to one incident when he spoke against Islam, which he himself had described as out of character and observed that it was difficult to understand why he would face problems in the future if his service was the same as it had been in the past. He said that the level of the persecution had changed. He spoke about the problems he had faced such as the encounter with the father of the boy he had chastised. He said that in the past he had done his service in a non-intensive way. When asked why he would do his service differently on return, he said that he would not do his service differently. He said that proselytising was prohibited and he would not do this openly and essentially repeated the claim that he would try to engage receptive people in conversation about Christianity. He gave an example of an occasion when a young Christian woman in his church in Egypt started a relationship with a Muslim man and he tried to dissuade her from continuing the relationship. The woman told him to mind his own business and her Muslim boyfriend came to the Church and insulted the applicant. After this they both left the area.
I noted that the applicant had provided some information on his religious activities in Australia and asked if there was anything he wanted to add and how he thought these activities would cause him problems if he returned to Egypt. The applicant spoke about spending time at a Church in [Australia] which mostly served Muslim converts, about briefly attending the [name] Church and about his involvement with Christian students at [name] University where he is currently studying to complete his [university] degree.
I noted that the applicant had already explained to me how he intended to practice his religion in Egypt and why he believed that this would cause him problems and asked if there was anything about his involvement in religious activities in Australia which would alter this. He said that his service would be more or less the same but he would serve God more intensely.
The applicant provided several media articles which discuss the situation of Copts and the problems they have faced, including an overview of the situation of Copts in Egypt published by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in May 2015 and articles on Coptic Christians who faced charges for insulting Islam. None contains information about the applicant himself.
The applicant also provided letters of support from fellow Christians in Australia which state that he is a committed Christian and that he has been involved in range of activities for religious groups in Australia.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS
Background 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 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 art. 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.[1] . Elections held in May 2014 saw former defence Minister Abdul Fatah al-Sisi was elected President
[1] 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 Salafists 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.[2]
[2] 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 Copts in 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.’[3]

Findings of fact and assessment of refugee status claims

[3] ‘Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians’, UK Border Agency, 30 June 2014, pp.7-8, available at type="1">

I accept that the applicant is a Coptic Christian and that he is committed to his faith. I also accept that he worked as a volunteer delivering food and other goods to poor people in remote areas until sometime in 2011 and that following this he assisting to transport children in his local area to Church and Sunday school. However, I do not accept that he was involved in providing spiritual support to people in remote areas or in providing tutoring services to children as part of his work with the Church as there is no mention of these activities in the detailed statement which he provided with his protection visa application.

The applicant claims that he was threatened and assaulted in August and September 2013 because he told some Islamic extremists who were attempting to convert him to Islam that Allah was not God and Mohammad was not his Prophet. While I accept that the applicant was threatened and assaulted in August and September 2013 because of his Christian religion, I have some concerns about the claim that these attacks where linked to his confrontation with extremists in the street in May 2013. I have difficulty accepting that the applicant would have engaged in conversation with these men in the street once they began to insult him and his religion rather than simply avoiding them. I also have difficulty reconciling the applicant’s evidence that the men did nothing at the time he insulted Islam and only began to threaten and attack him some two or three months later. Despite this, I am prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt on this issue and accept that he was attacked and beaten in the street in August 2013 and that he was threatened in his home and slapped in the street in September 2013 at least in part because he was believed to have insulted Islam in May 2013. However, while I accept that his car was vandalised in September 2013, I do not accept that this incident was linked to his statements regarding Islam in May 2013.

I believe that the applicant’s car was vandalised because there was a cross hanging in the front which identified it as belonging to a Christian. The police report which the applicant provided in support of this claim clearly states that his car was attacked as part of generalised violence in the area because it contained items which identified as belonging to a Christian. During the hearing the applicant agreed that the report indicated that the attack was part of the generalised violence and claimed for the first time that he had discussed this error with his lawyer who told him that the police had refused to include full details of the reason for the attack. I do not accept this. If the applicant had been aware that the report was inaccurate because the police had refused to take full details of his complaint I believe he would have explained this when he first provided the report. In addition, the applicant gave several different and unconvincing reasons why the police had failed to accurately record the reasons for the attack. I find this to be further indication that the applicant’s evidence regarding the alleged flaws in the report and the attack on his car are not credible.

I do not accept that a warning letter was placed on the applicant’s car the night before it was vandalised or that he was approached by someone who warned that he would be harmed if did not convert to Islam. If this had been the case I believe that the applicant’s lawyer would have reported these matters to the police and that they would have been included in the police report on the incident.

In any event, whatever the exact motivation for these threats and attacks, they all occurred during a time of heightened violence against Christians in Egypt and ended when the violence began to subside in September 2013 and I find the chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm at the hands of the people who attacked and threatened him in 2013 if he returned to Egypt now or within the reasonably foreseeable future to be remote and insubstantial.
In the first place, while the applicant’s whereabouts were clearly known to his attackers and other extremists in the area in mid-2013, he was not threatened or attacked during the period of nearly five months he remained in Egypt after his car was vandalised. If the applicant’s attackers were determined to harm him I believe that they would not have ceased pursuing him at that time.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the claim that the applicant avoided problems by hiding in his home. However, I reject this claim as implausible. The applicant was threatened in his home in 2013 and according to his own evidence, was vulnerable there as it would have been easy to break in. If the applicant had genuinely feared further attacks I do not believe he would have remained in his home. Furthermore, as noted above, the spike of violence in mid-2013 was short-lived and I do not accept that the applicant would have abandoned his studies and remained at home once it became clear that the violence had subsided.
I have also considered the applicant’s claim that someone followed him when he ventured out and drove to university in late 2013 and that this proved that his attackers were still monitoring him and wished to harm him. However, I do not accept this claim. It is not plausible that the applicant’s would be attackers would have been so determined to harm him that they would have monitored his movements for a matter of months so they could follow him when he left his home, but would not have attempted to approach or harm him in his home, which as discussed, would have been easy for them to do. Furthermore, during the hearing the applicant said that he was not sure if he recognised the driver of the car.
Secondly, as discussed above, the violence which occurred in mid-2013 reduced significantly following this time. The Muslim Brotherhood was banned and many of its members and supporters were arrested and charged with various offences. In addition, as set out above, DFAT and others have advised that Christians are not generally at risk of harm for reasons of religion in Egypt and that Christians in middle class urban areas were less likely than others to experience harm. The applicant comes from a middle to lower class urban area. According to his evidence, he had a number of Muslim friends in the area, his Muslim neighbours helped him when he was attacked and most people, including most Muslims, celebrated the ouster of President Morsi, all of which indicates that extremists do not dominate the area.
When the current situation in Egypt was discussed at the hearing, the applicant agreed that the situation had changed significantly since 2013 and that Christians are not generally at risk of harm in Egypt today. He effectively abandoned the claim that he feared returning to Egypt because he feared he would be harmed by the men who had attacked him in 2013 or by the extremists who attempted to convert him in May 2013. He said that he believed that there was only a very small chance that he would be harmed by these men or anyone else because of what had happened in the past and that his fears now related to the nature of his future service in the Church.
The reasons the applicant currently fears returning to Egypt were discussed at some length during the hearing. He said that he would continue to serve the Church as he had in the past, but this alone would not cause him serious problems. I accept that the applicant will continue to attend Church and to be active as volunteer if he returns to Egypt. However, as agreed by the applicant, there is nothing in the evidence which indicates that Christians who are committed to their faith and involved in Church activities in support of other Christians are at risk of serious harm for participating in these activities. Furthermore, I am I not aware of any evidence that Christians who provide material aid or support to Muslims are at risk of serious harm for these activities alone.
The applicant claims that it is the manner in which he will carry out his religious service that will cause problems with extremists or other Muslims if he returns to Egypt. He said that he regretted his response to the men who attempted to convert him in the street and he would not insult Islam in future. He also said that he would not attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity. However, he would be outspoken about his faith and while he would not approach extremists or people who were not interested or responsive, he would try to steer conversations with appropriate people towards a discussion of religion in which he would tell them about Christianity in the hope that they might be interested and might pursue this interest further.
I do not accept that the applicant will attempt to influence people he encounters learn more about Christianity by speaking to them about his faith.
In the first place, I do not accept that the applicant engaged in such activities in the past. The only occasion on which he claims to have spoken in depth to a Muslim about Christianity in the past was when he claims to have discussed his religion with a Muslim woman he met during one of his trips to a remote area. This incident was not mentioned prior to the hearing, indeed there is nothing in the evidence provided prior to the hearing which suggests that the applicant attempted to attract anyone to Christianity prior to his departure from Egypt. I find that the applicant concocted this claim to enhance his claim for protection. The only other occasion on which the applicant claims to have faced problems with a Muslim because of a perceived attempt to influence someone towards Christianity occurred when he chastised a Muslim boy in a class his was tutoring for not behaving in a Christian manner. There is no mention of this incident in the evidence provided by the applicant prior the hearing and I find that it was also concocted to support his case.
Secondly, I found the evidence the applicant gave regarding the exact nature of his future service and why it would cause him problems confused and unconvincing.
In reaching the conclusion that the applicant will not engage in attempts to attract Muslims to Christianity I have considered the applicant’s evidence that his experiences in Australia where there is greater freedom of religion will mean that his religious service will be “more intense” if he returned to Egypt. As noted above, I find that he concocted claims about his past activities to support the claim that he would be involved in these activities and found the evidence he gave regarding his future activities unconvincing. There is nothing in the applicant’s evidence regarding his activities in Australia which persuades me that he will become involved attempts to attract Muslims to Christianity in Egypt.
After considering all of the evidence, including any cumulative effect of the credible claims put forward and taking account of the independent evidence on the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt today, I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution in Egypt within the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons of religion or for any other reason in the Convention.

Complementary protection

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), I have considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa), which requires the Minister to consider whether there are 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 will suffer significant harm.
The applicant’s claims for complementary protection rely on the same facts as his claims for refugee status. As discussed above, I found some of these claims to be lacking in credibility and found that the applicant did not face a real chance of suffering serious harm for any of the reasons claimed in his application. For the same reasons I find that he does not a real risk of suffering significant harm for any reason on his return to Egypt.
After considering all of the evidence and taking account of any cumulative effect of the credible claims put forward by the applicant, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Egypt there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

For the reasons given above, the Tribunal not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Roslyn Smidt
Member

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Statutory Construction
Natural Justice
Jurisdiction

[2016] AATA 3207

21 January 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction