1418568 (Refugee)

1418568 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4803 (9 December 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1418568
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt
MEMBER:Sean Baker
DATE:9 December 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
Statement made on 09 December 2016 at 5:00pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Egypt – Religion – Coptic Christian – Suspected religious meetings – Proselytising – Blasphemy laws – Credibility issues – Fraudulent documents

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c), 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451
Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unreported, 7 November 1997)
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 576
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 at 558-9
SECONDARY MATERIALS
DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015
Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Egypt: Situation of Coptic Christians, including treatment; state protection available (2014-May 2015), 8 May 2015, EGY105152.E, available at: 8 December 2016]
World Watch Monitor, ‘Copt teenager kidnapped for ransom in Upper Egypt’, 21 April 2016,
Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, ‘The Promised Law: Egypt Authorizes New Churches’, 1 September 2016, Christianity Today,
UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): MS (Coptic Christians) Egypt CG [2013] UKUT 00611 (IAC) at [26]
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

The applicants are nationals of Egypt and Coptic Christians. Only [the primary applicant] (or ‘the applicant’) has made claims to fear harm. He claims that he had a Muslim colleague, [Mr A], who was curious about Christianity. [The applicant] took [Mr A] to find a church in which exorcisms were practiced and introduced [Mr A] to other Christians. [Mr A] also visited the applicants’ apartment and when he was visiting the landlord came around and the landlord and [Mr A] had a heated argument about Islam and Christianity. Whilst the applicant was in Australia, [Mr A] returned to his apartment and got in another argument with the landlord, the police were called and the applicant has been charged with preaching Christianity and using his apartment for meetings.
The delegate refused the application on the basis that the delegate did not accept that the documents provided were genuine, found the claims implausible, and only a remote chance that the applicants would be harmed on return. The applicants provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with their application for review.
A summary of the relevant law is set out at Attachment A. I have taken the policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration and the country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) into account to the extent that they are relevant. The issues in this review are whether the applicants have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention in Egypt and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of any of the applicants being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Identity and nationality
To the Department the applicants provided copies of their Egyptian passports and Identity cards. On the basis of this evidence and with no evidence to the contrary, I find that the applicants are who they claim to be and that they are nationals of Egypt, which is also their receiving country.
I find that applicant two, is applicant one’s spouse and a member of his family unit.
There is no evidence before me to suggest that either of the applicants have a right to enter and reside in a third country and I so find.
[The applicant’s] claims and evidence
According to his [October] 2013 statutory declaration:
·     The applicant is [age] years old and was born and lived in Alexandria;
·     He is married and has two children, [one child] who is in Australia as a permanent resident, and [another child] who lives in [another country]. He has one brother who resides in Cairo;
·     He and his wife travelled to Australia on [temporary] visas. They applied for carer visas to care for [a relative], however [the relative] no longer requires their care and they booked tickets to return to Egypt;
·     Whilst in Australia the applicant’s brother had been checking on the applicants’ apartment monthly;
·     On the day he booked his ticket ([in] October 2013) he called his brother to tell him he was returning. His brother told him that the apartment had been sealed with red wax as it was suspected that the applicant had used his apartment to preach Christianity, a crime in Egypt;
·     The reason for this is that around April 2012 a fellow employee, [Mr A], expressed interest in Christianity to the applicant, and would visit the applicant and speak on the phone, visiting him 4 – 5 times until about October both at work and later at his apartment. He asked the applicant for a copy of the bible, and the applicant assisted [Mr A] in seeing and learning about Christian exorcisms, which [Mr A] was interested in, taking him to [a] Church in [a town] to speak to [a priest];
·     [Mr A] then attended exorcisms and religious classes without the applicant but would continue to call the applicant about certain verses in the bible;
·     This relationship/friendship continued until about October. This is where the applicant’s problems started. Around the beginning of October, [Mr A] visited him at home with the church servant the applicant had introduced [Mr A] to. Whilst there, the applicant’s landlord came over to collect the rent, and got into a heated argument with [Mr A] over differences between Christians and Muslims, particularly in relation to exorcisms. The applicant calmed them down and thought nothing of it until his phone call with his brother on [in] October 2013;
·     The applicant’s brother told him that [Mr A] had visited the applicant whilst he was in Australia with the Church Servant and been seen by the landlord. They had had another heated argument and the applicant’s understanding is that the police were called and a report was filed and the applicant charged with preaching Christianity and using his apartment to conduct meetings and the like. The landlord had speculated that this was the reason for the applicant’s brother’s visits;
·     The applicant’s brother told him to stay in Australia as if he returned he would be arrested at the airport. He cancelled his flight;
·     He fears being arrested and imprisoned for a crime he did not commit and that he would be beaten and tortured daily for allegedly preaching Islam and as a Christian. he also notes that Christians are subject to discrimination and degrading treatment;
·     He thinks the police, intelligence and judiciary will harm him, his landlord as a muslim will be believed over him. the justice system is inquisitorial so there is no presumption of innocence and he will be beaten in jail, especially as a Christian;
·     He thinks this will happen because such suspicions are not taken lightly in Egypt. he will not be able to live freely;
·     The authorities will not help him as they will be the persecutor;
·     He fears suffering this harm as a Coptic Christian and he cannot relocate.
The application indicates that the applicant was working until November 2012. At hearing he said that he had resigned at this time.
The applicant provided original police investigation reports and public prosecution documents, as discussed below. These were submitted to the document examination unit at DIBP.
[The applicant’s wife] did not make separate claims of her own.
The delegate refused the application, noting country information about the situation in Egypt, and that document fraud was a significant issue in Egypt, quoted the summary of outcomes from the document examination report and found that this summary cast considerable doubt as to the authenticity of all the documents submitted by the applicant and undermined the whole basis of his claims. The delegate found the claims of the applicant implausible and concluded that the applicant had fabricated his claims and did not accept he had been charged by the authorities with proselytising, and having considered his religious profile and the evolving political environment, found that there was not more than a remote chance he would be subjected to persecution.
To the Tribunal, the applicants provided a copy of the delegate’s decision, and on 30 November 2016, a submission with attachments.
The submission claims the applicant will be harmed for reasons of religion and as a member of a PSG, although the submission does not define what particular social group it refers to. The submission claims Coptic Christians are persecuted and not provided with protection by the authorities of Egypt. The submission comments on the delegate’s decision. It contains a range of source documents which discuss the situation in Egypt. The submission also addresses complementary protection claims on the same fact matrix as above.
Credibility
In this case I had considerable concerns with the claims of the applicant, which I raised with him throughout the hearing. Of most significance were the documents he provided, but there were also other, significant, concerns, all of which lead me to find that the applicant is not credible or a witness of truth, on the basis of the reasoning below.
The documents
The applicant provided to the Department original police reports and prosecution documents with their translations. These include a police report dated [in] May 2013, in which the applicant’s landlord makes a complaint that the applicant had used his flat for religious meetings and preaching and acts against the principle of the Islamic religion, recommenced on [a later date in] May 2013 when the police interviewed [Mr A]; a public prosecutions decision dated [the later day in] May 2013 which ordered the release of [Mr A] and the arrest of the applicant; a further public prosecutions decision dated [in] June 2013 to speed up the detective’s investigation; an investigation report dated [in] October 2013, indicating and investigator had investigated, confirmed the incident, found the applicant was not at home and in hiding, and that they had inquired and found he had departed Egypt; a prosecutor report dated [in] October 2013 placing the applicant on the watch list at the borders, and ordering that red seals be placed on his apartment; and an investigation report dated [October] 2013 indicating that the red seals had been placed on the apartment.
These were referred to the document examination unit in the Department of Immigration. As I noted to the applicant at the hearing, these are specialists at the examination of documents.
[This paragraph discusses the report of the document examination unit on the applicant’s documents].
I then explained to the applicant the specific issues with the documents, noting the print defects that were identical to documents provided in other, unrelated cases from different police stations, and that the ‘wet stamp’ is not a wet stamp but an inkjet printed reproduction of a wet stamp. After some clarification the applicant indicated that he understood the information.
I then explained to him that this information was relevant because it may lead me to find that all of the police reports and prosecutors documents are fraudulent, which may lead me to find that the events they claim to describe did not happen, and may lead me to doubt all or some of the claims he had made. Because they were provided by him, I indicated, it may also lead me to doubt his general credibility. I explained that this, subject to any comment or response he made, would be the reason, or a part of the reason for affirming the decision that is under review. Again, after some clarification he indicated that he understood the relevance of the information.
I asked whether he wished to respond immediately and noted he had a right to ask for more time. Initially he said that regarding these things he knew nothing about it, I had said it was fraud and there were some marks, he had no idea about these things I then provided him with a break to consider how he wished to respond, and the information and relevance, with his representative. After the break he elected to respond straight away and said that his brother went and got them from the police station with a solicitor. I noted that this did not seem to make sense to me as if they had been provided by the police station I could see no reason why they would not have been provided with a wet stamp, rather than an inkjet reproduction of one. He said he had no idea, all that he knew was that this report happened and his brother got it from the police station.
The representative made an oral submission at the end of the hearing that fidnings of fraud in relation to the documents should not be made lightly because the charges would be likely to cause him to suffer significant harm. he noted that the summary from the document examination unit pointed to the police reports in particular and that there were still the prosecutor reports to rely on. I noted that if I considered the police reports to be fraudulent I may also consider the prosecutor reports also to be fraudulent. The representative said that the applicant had provided these reports in good faith, having received them from brother, he believes them to be authentic. The representative said that there is still a possibility they might be authentic as the language of the document examination unit summary was ‘a strong probability’ He said that given the serious nature of the claims, and that there was still a possibility they are authentic, weight should be given to these documents. I have also considered the written submission which claims it would be unreasonable to dismiss the entirety of the applicant’s claims on the basis that the documents he produced have the potential to be fake, that the prevalence of document fraud in Egypt does not mean these documents are fraudulent, his claims must be assessed in conjunction with country information and that applicant had provided them in good faith after receiving them from overseas and therefore they are likely to be authentic.
I do not accept any of these explanations proffered. They do not explain the deficiencies in the police reports identified by the document examination unit. The applicant and his representative have been on notice of this issue since the decision of the delegate but have been unable to provide any explanation or evidence which might explain the concerns raised or indicate that the documents are genuine. I find that the deficiencies raised by the document examination unit, being the print defects which appear on these documents and documents in several other, unrelated cases, from different police stations, and the fact that the ‘wet stamps’ are inkjet reproductions of wet stamps, lead me to find that the police reports are fraudulent documents that have been contrived to form the basis of the application. In making this finding I have considered the explanations but none of them, I find, explain the deficiencies, nor offer an alternative basis for concluding the documents are genuine other than second or third hand information about the events the documents claim to be proof of. I do not accept that the applicant’s brother did obtain them from the police station, with or without a solicitor, because I consider that a police station would provide the documents with a wet stamp, to indicate their authenticity, rather than an inkjet facsimile of a wet stamp, nor do I accept that there is more than a remote possibility that that particular police station would have used a document or template that was also in use in several other police stations in Egypt. I do not accept that the careful language of the document examination report summary, of a strong probability indicates that there is a reasonable or good chance that they may be genuine, I find that the language used in the summary is indicative of a high degree of certainty that the documents are contrived, and along with the above reasoning, I find this to be the case. For reasons set out below, I do not accept that the applicant has offered these documents in good faith, and even if he had, I do not accept that this somehow leads to them being authentic.
The applicant claims that the documents were provided to him by his brother, and that he knows nothing of their genuineness. As I noted to him, the documents are a key part of his claims, much of his claims rely on information his brother gained from the porter, or that the applicant was told by his brother, second or third hand information. the documents, I find, have been provided by the applicant as a central and key part of his claims. I do not accept or find convincing his assertion that he has no knowledge that these documents are fraudulent, and I find that the applicant has had a part in, and knowingly provided, fraudulent documents as the basis for his claim. This leads me, in conjunction with the below concerns, to doubt his general credibility or that he is a witness of truth.
Claims in relation to [Mr A]
I expressed to the applicant on a number of occasions my doubts about the story that a colleague had struck up a conversation with him about comparative religion, befriended him, he had taken to Churches and had come to his apartment and gotten into an argument with the applicant’s landlord, and then that this friend would give the police responses that would implicate the applicant in serious allegations.
As I noted to the applicant, my analysis was that Egypt is a conservative country where people live their day-to-day lives without discussing or raising differences in religion and there is an awareness of the reach of blasphemy / defamation of religion laws which constrains people’s discussion of these matters.[1] He did not disagree with this analysis. I noted that it seemed unlikely to me that a colleague would come to his office and discuss religion with him. The applicant agreed, saying that he always avoided talking about religious topics, and on this occasion he did not offer anything to do with religion, it was [Mr A] who asked him for religious books and the holy bible, and the applicant did not talk to him about Christianity, he just took him to the Church, and there are many Muslim people there who attend the Church. This response, firstly, appears at odds with his statutory declaration, where he said [Mr A] would call him to discuss verses in the Bible with him, and regardless, the applicant has not addressed my concern, that my inference from the country information is that a Christian in the applicant’s circumstances and a Muslim in [Mr A’s] circumstances would both be unlikely to raise religion on first meeting. The representative made an oral submission that it was plausible for [Mr A] to attend and see the bible on his desk, without offering any further reasoning or country information to support this. I don’t accept this reasoning, given the country information I have read and my inferences from that above.
[1] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015; BTI 2016 – Egypt Country Report, p. 10, DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt – 24 November 2015, 3.14 – 3.21

I raised a further concern with the applicant that he had described him and [Mr A] having a relationship/friendship in his statutory declaration, and the applicant had helped [Mr A] resolve his work issue with the credit card, had had a friendship/relationship with him since April 2012, had taken him to churches, spoken on the phone about passages of the bible, and [Mr A] had visited his apartment in May 2013 to see if the applicant had returned from overseas, it did not make sense to me that [Mr A] would provide information to the police which [Mr A] would have been aware would lead to the applicant being accused of very serious offences. In response the applicant said that the landlord had already heard [Mr A] saying the faith of Christians was stronger, and had seen him with the church servant twice, and so [Mr A] felt threatened and implicated. The applicant said that whatever [Mr A] said in the report had actually happened, he asked for books and the applicant gave him books, whatever he stated, was what had happened. He said maybe [Mr A] was concerned that if he did not say that the police will incriminate him.
I do not find his explanations at all convincing – [Mr A] may have felt under some pressure, but there is no indication in the documents, or in the other evidence the applicant has been able to offer, that [Mr A] was ever accused or implicated, despite him apparently being the one who argued with the landlord on both occasions. I don’t accept on the evidence before me that [Mr A] would have felt pressured to implicate the applicant, and even if, as the applicant claims, [Mr A’s] evidence to the police was simply what he claims had actually occurred, I do not see any reason for [Mr A] to not have been more circumspect in his evidence to the police, where he would be aware that his evidence could have serious and significant implications for the applicant, his friend.
But of most significance is the claimed argument between [Mr A] and the landlord when the landlord came to the applicant’s flat to collect rent. The applicant struggled to explain the sequence of events, how he let in the landlord and how [Mr A] struck up or continued a conversation about the aspects of Christianity he believed were better than under Islamic practice. The applicant’s evidence about what was said by [Mr A], and in the argument was undetailed, and he was unable to clearly and coherently explain who [Mr A] was making these claims to, and how the argument arose, especially in the context of the conservative nature of Egyptian society and the fact that [Mr A] had not ever met the landlord before. All of these concerns lead me to a positive state of disbelief that this argument between [Mr A] and the applicant’s landlord ever occurred.
Finally, as I raised with the applicant, if I discount the documents for the above reasons, then the applicant has only second or third hand accounts to establish the claims that the landlord has made a complaint to the police, the authorities have sealed his flat and the applicant is on a watch list. As I noted to him this evidence is tenuous evidence to conclude that these things have in fact happened. He did not directly respond. I consider that there is a paucity of supporting evidence for the claimed events in the fraudulent documents.
For all of these reasons I find the applicant’s claims in relation to [Mr A] implausible. I do not accept that [Mr A] befriended the applicant, asked for a bible and to be taken to Churches to witness exorcisms, which led to [Mr A] visiting and arguing with his landlord and returning and arguing again with the landlord, leading to the sequence of events claimed. This finding further leads me to doubt the general credibility of the applicant.
Findings in relation to credibility
On the basis of the findings above I find that the applicant is not credible or a witness of truth, and that he has knowingly provided false or fraudulent documents. On this basis I find that:
·     [Mr A] did not come to the applicant’s office, see his bible, and ask the applicant about Christinaity and exorcisms;
·     The applicant did not provide [Mr A] with a bible or any other religious materials;
·     The applicant did not take [Mr A] to churches to find a Church at which exorcisms were performed, or introduce [Mr A] to a church servant or anyone else;
·     [Mr A] did not attend exorcisms or religious classes with or without the applicant;
·      [Mr A] did not call the applicant at any stage to ask about certain verses in the bible;
·     [Mr A] did not come to the applicant’s apartment around October 2012 or at any other time with a church servant or anyone else and get in an argument with the applicant’s landlord;
·     [Mr A] did not come to visit the applicant while he was still in Australia or at any other time and get in a further argument with the landlord, leading to the police being called;
·     No report has been filed against the applicant accusing him of preaching Christianity and using his apartment to conduct meetings or any other accusation, by the landlord or anyone else;
·     The applicant did not claim, and I do not accept that [Mr A] has converted, or even shown any interest in Christianity;
·     There is no investigation, either past or ongoing, in relation to the applicant, nor is his name on a stop and watch list at the borders of Egypt, nor has the applicant’s apartment been sealed with red wax, nor have the authorities taken any other actions against the applicant. I find the authorities have no interest in the applicant on the basis of his claims whatsoever;
·     The landlord does not wish to get rid of the applicant, for religious reasons or because the landlord wants to rent the apartment for a higher rate or for any other reason, and I find the applicant has not stopped paying rent as he claimed;
·     I do not accept that either applicant has any interest in proselytising, raised in the submissions, but not pressed by the applicant at hearing, and on this, the above findings and my credibility findings I do not accept that either will seek to proselytise or spread Christianity on return to Egypt;
The applicant also claimed, late in the hearing, that he or his family would be kidnapped because the kidnappers would presume that the applicant and his wife, having lived in Australia, would be rich, and that rich Coptic Christians or their families or those presumed to be are targeted for kidnapping. The applicant expressed this claim only at the end of the hearing, and his evidence on this was confused and unclear. There is evidence that since the January 2011 revolution, as part of an overall decline in law and order throughout Egypt, the ‘Coptic community suffered particularly from an increase in kidnappings, particularly in Upper Egypt, due to a perception that Copts were more willing and able to pay ransoms.’[2] As I noted to the applicant, information I had seen consistently indicate that such kidnappings tend to occur in Upper Egypt and some in the Sinai.[3] These sources detail serious, and harrowing accounts of kidnappings of Christians, but the examples cited are in Upper Egypt and Sinai, not in the more populous, urban areas of lower Egypt including Cairo and Alexandria. I noted also that the information I had read did not indicate that people returning would be perceived as wealthy or place them at a greater chance of being kidnapped. The applicant said he did not know anyone in particular who had been kidnapped but Christians who are wealthy are kidnapped. I asked if there was any reason he thought this would happen to him and noted that many Copts, of the age of the applicants, remained in Australia for some time and returned, and I did not see why these people would be targeted for kidnapping. In response he said that they might not kidnap him or his wife, but might kidnap their relatives to seek a ransom. I noted that his two children and grandchildren were in Australia. He said they might kidnap his brother or his brother’s children. I do not find the claims of the applicant at all convincing, and the country information before me indicates that, whilst there has been an increase in kidnappings targeting Copts in Egypt, the reported incidents are in Upper Egypt and the Sinai, more remote and rural areas of Egypt than Cairo. I do not accept the applicant’s reasoning for why he or his wife or his brother or brother’s family might be targeted for kidnapping, his claims were unconvincing and I find are not supported by the country information.
[2] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015, 4.31.
[3] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Egypt: Situation of Coptic Christians, including treatment; state protection available (2014-May 2015), 8 May 2015, EGY105152.E, available at: 8 December 2016]; World Watch Monitor, ‘Copt teenager kidnapped for ransom in Upper Egypt’, 21 April 2016,
I note also that the applicant indicated that he and his wife had not been seriously harmed nor had their freedom deprived in the past in Egypt. He said that they had been discriminated against, he had been denied pay rises or promotions, and he and his wife had sometimes been verbally harassed on the street. I find this lack of past harm not determinative, but relevant to a consideration of what will occur in the future.
Findings in relation to religion and particular social group
What I do accept is that the applicants are Coptic Christians, who lived in [Cairo], and that applicant one retired shortly before they travelled to Australia. I accept they would return to Egypt as failed asylum seekers. However, for the reasons below I do not accept that they will be harmed for any reason connected with these characteristics.
At the hearing I raised with the applicant relevant country information about the situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt presently.
The applicant said that you had to look at what had been happening over the last 30 years and the imposition of Sharia law, and asked what about the things they see such as sending men and women to jail under the degradation of religion law, even people who commented on the internet or the children of Minya, or the teacher of Luxor had been accused of degrading religions. I noted to the applicant that these examples seemed to me to not relate directly to his circumstances, and to have occurred in regional areas of Egypt, not in an urban area like Cairo.
I acknowledged that Copts faced some level of official discrimination, despite the efforts of Sisi to improve the situation, but this was particularly the case in regional areas, and was most often experienced in relation to employment.[4] I noted that following the January 2011 revolution and the Morsi government, there were reports of harassment and intimidation of Copts, but that the information I had seen indicated there had been substantial improvements under Sisi of personal safety and freedom of worship for Copts, and that the DFAT officers’ assessment was that ‘most Copts from all walks of life live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, particularly in urban centres.’[5]
[4] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015, p. 7 - 11, Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Egypt: Situation of Coptic Christians, including treatment; state protection available (2014-May 2015), 8 May 2015, EGY105152.E, available at: 8 December 2016]
[5] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015, 3.36
The applicant said that when Sisi came in they thought he would do these things, as in the beginning, he was talking nicely, but until now nothing happened, there were no laws about repairing Churches or helping the situation of Christians. He said that Islamic sharia law is the source of law and there are religious channels which trigger people to harm Christians, and nothing has happened about this law of building churches. He said that jihad watch ( ranked Egypt 22^nd in terms of countries discriminating against minorities. He said that all Muslim women are veiled and when they saw his wife without a veil they would say bad words to her.
I noted to him that there had been recent church building laws passed in Egypt in August 2016, which seemed to indicate a more positive situation for the rebuilding of destroyed or building of new churches, and perhaps a positive sign for Copts; the new laws removing restrictive zoning and permission requirements and allows provincial governors to approve buildings or restorations rather than the President, and the new law, despite some reservations, had been welcomed by Coptic MPs and religious figures.[6] The applicant responded that he had not heard this but if it had to be approved by the governors it would not be as there was a Christian governor who was supposed to be appointed to a province and it was rejected by the people so it did not go ahead.
[6] Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, ‘The Promised Law: Egypt Authorizes New Churches’, 1 September 2016, Christianity Today,
I noted to him country information that in day-to-day life:
2.20 Notwithstanding the overall rise in the number of violent incidents in recent decades, including some high-profile attacks, DFAT assesses that day-to-day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overtly affected by communal tensions. 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 (see ‘Violence’).[7]
[7] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015, 2.20.
I further noted that personal harm from communal violence appeared to be a low risk for Copts, that vandalism and destruction of property were more common than violence towards persons, that state violence against Copts undertaking protests had reduced in number and consequence under Sisi, that it was assessed there was no organised terrorist campaign against Copts, although isolated attacks may occur, that since Sisi came to power widespread sectarian attacks against Copts have ceased and there is a low risk of them reoccurring, and that localised attacks do occur but occur particularly in Upper Egypt and are less likely in larger cities, and the authorities are generally committed to preventing them, although this varies by location, and that attacks since July 2013 have been primarily opportunistic in nature.[8]
[8] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015; UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): MS (Coptic Christians) Egypt CG [2013] UKUT 00611 (IAC); Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Egypt: Situation of Coptic Christians, including treatment; state protection available (2014-May 2015), 8 May 2015, EGY105152.E, available at: [accessed 8 December 2016]
In response the applicant said that the Word of Sisi is very good but on the other hand there are things happening differently, those laws causing harm to Christians are still there, and even though there had been a final court order against extremists ordering the death penalty, this had been cancelled. He said that those terrorist groups are still powerful and it is not widespread but they do assault Christians and properties, and damage churches, even in Cairo, not just in the far areas. He said in addition he will be locked up.
The applicant claimed that religious discrimination against Copts was widespread in Egypt and religious fundamentalist speech had affected all sectors of society including the authorities.
The applicant’s representative noted that ongoing sectarian violence can escalate into larger situations.
Country information does indicate that blasphemy laws are used in Egypt, and that such use increased after the January 2011 revolution, a number of high profile cases involving Copts have occurred recently, and whilst some blasphemy cases have been dismissed, generally the legal process is poor.[9] However, my consideration of the country information is that blasphemy laws are used against public figures or those who have had a role in proselytising or otherwise going against the religious status quo, and given my findings above, I do not accept that the applicants are any part of either of these categories.
[9] See UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): MS (Coptic Christians) Egypt CG [2013] UKUT 00611 (IAC) at [26]; DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts – 24 November 2015, 3.6 – 3.10.
I have had regard to the above country information. I have also considered the country information provided in the submission – I note that much of this pre-dates the country information provided above, and/or details specific incidents in Egypt without regard to their incidence. I note that the information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade comes from a range of sources including those in-country, and that other sources referred to, such as the UK upper tribunal decision, include detailed and meticulous research and information from experts. I prefer these sources and give them greater weight than those referred to in the submission and the examples the applicant gave at hearing which I do not consider directly relevant to his or applicant two’s situation.
I find on the country information above which I prefer for the reasons stated, that Coptic Christians in Egypt are not persecuted, whilst some individuals and those with particular characteristics, such as converts from Islam to Christianity, may be. I understand that, given the violence after the January 2011 revolution, the indifference to acts of violence during Morsi’s reign and the violence in the immediate aftermath of his removal, there is considerable apprehension in the Coptic community. however, my assessment of the country information now is that Sisi’s rule has led to a diminishing in the personal dangers to individual Copts, as well as real and measurable improvements for the Coptic community, such as the Church building laws referred to. The country information above indicates that there is a low chance of harm, either communal, official discrimination, individual acts of violence, or kidnappings, and the incidents that have occurred have largely occurred outside the cities.
I have also considered the country information in relation to return, and as I noted to the applicant I did not consider that he or his wife would be at risk of harm or an increased risk of harm because they would return as afield asylum seekers. Given they left the country lawfully, I do not accept that the authorities or anyone else would be aware that the applicants had applied for asylum or would return as failed asylum seekers. Even were the authorities or anyone else to be aware of this, I find on the information before me that there would be no chance of harm to them, because the country information indicates that:
5.31 DFAT assesses that people who return to Egypt after several years’ absence will not face any adverse attention on their return on account of their absence. Likewise, DFAT assesses that failed asylum seekers will not face adverse attention on account of their failed application for asylum when they return to Egypt.[10]
This agrees with other country information.
What will happen to the applicants on return
[10] DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt – 24 November 2015.
The above leads me to find that for the applicants, as older Coptic Christians returning to Cairo, to their apartment, which I find they are still renting from their landlord, who has no animosity or desire to get rid of them whatsoever, and I find they could return there, live their day-to-day life and worship freely in the same manner as they have with only a remote and far-fetched chance of them being harmed by the authorities, fundamentalist Muslims or anyone else.

I find, on the reasoning above, that the applicant is of no interest to the authorities, for reasons of the accusations which I have found have not been made or for any other reason. I do not accept therefore that on return the applicant will be arrested and imprisoned and degraded, or otherwise harmed by the authorities in any other way for a crime he did not commit or for any other reason. I do not accept that he would be beaten and tortured daily for allegedly preaching Islam and as a Christian by the authorities or anyone else. I do not accept that there is any court order against the applicant or that he is on the stop and watch list at the borders. I do not accept that the police, intelligence, judiciary or his landlord will harm him in any way.
I do not accept, on my findings above and the country information, that there is any more than a remote or far-fetched chance of the applicant, his wife or their family in Egypt being kidnapped or otherwise harmed, and I do not accept that their time in Australia or their long period overseas leads to an increase in the chance of kidnapping of them or their family increasing.
I do not accept that, on return, either of the applicants would seek to proselytise or spread the Christian faith in any way, I find they would continue to worship as they did previously in Egypt. I do not accept, on my findings above, that there is any reason the applicants would be accused under the blasphemy laws on return.
Whilst I accept that the applicants having to return to Egypt will be difficult and sad for them and their family in Australia, including applicant two’s parents, the applicants’ children and grandchildren, given their long period in Australia, I do not accept that it will lead to harm to them or their families to the level of serious or significant harm.
Whilst I accept on the country information that Coptic Christians in Egypt are subject to low-level discrimination, I do not accept that this reaches the level of serious or significant harm. In particular I have had regard to the evidence, which I do accept, that the applicant’s wife may have been subjected to verbal abuse in the streets for not wearing a headscarf, which is consistent with country information. Such behaviour cannot be minimised or condoned, but I consider that even at its highest, and considered cumulatively, such behaviour does not reach the level of serious harm.
Whilst I accept the applicants would return as failed asylum seekers I do not accept that this would be know to the authorities or anyone else on return, or that if it is, that this will lead to harm from the authorities or anyone else.
I asked the applicant if there was any other Convention ground on which he feared harm other than religion and he said there was not, and I find on the evidence before me that there is no real chance of the applicants being harmed on any other basis.
I have considered the applicant’s claims that I have accepted, individually and cumulatively, and I find that there is no real chance of either applicant being seriously harmed for reasons of their religion, their membership of a particular social group of failed asylum seekers returning after a lengthy period away or any reason connected with these, by the police, intelligence or judiciary, other authorities, their landlord, fundamentalist Muslims or anyone else on return to Egypt, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection
I have considered whether there are substantial grounds for me to believe that the applicants will face a real risk of significant harm on being returned to their receiving country. I have found above that there is no real chance that they will be seriously harmed on return in the reasonably foreseeable future. At hearing I asked the applicant if he feared harm or his wife did for any other reason. He reiterated the claimed harm above. I have considered the claims of harm, and my assessment of the situation for the applicants if they return to Cairo. They have not made any further claims to fear harm.
I find, for the reasons above, that the applicants do not face a real risk of significant harm in Egypt from the police, intelligence or judiciary, other authorities, their landlord, fundamentalist Muslims or anyone else for reasons of their religion or returning as failed asylum seekers after a lengthy period away or any other reason, alone or taken cumulatively. Therefore, having regard to these findings and the findings above, both individually and cumulatively, I find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm upon being removed from Australia to Egypt.
Conclusions
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
Sean Baker
Member

ATTACHMENT A - 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.
Credibility
As Beaumont J observed in Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451, ‘in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for’. However this should not lead to ‘an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by suppliants’. As the Full Court of the Federal Court (von Doussa, Moore and Sackville JJ) observed in Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unreported, 7 November 1997):
‘Where there is conflicting evidence from different sources, questions of credit of witnesses may have to be resolved. The RRT is also entitled to attribute greater weight to one piece of evidence as against another, and to act on its opinion that one version of the facts is more probable than another’ (citing Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 281-282)
As the Full Court noted in that case, this statement of principle is subject to the qualification explained by the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 576 per Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ where they observed that:
‘in determining whether there is a real chance that an event will occur, or will occur for a particular reason, the degree of probability that similar events have or have not occurred for particular reasons in the past is relevant in determining the chance that the event or the reason will occur in the future.’
If, however, the Tribunal has ‘no real doubt’ that the claimed events did not occur, it will not be necessary for it to consider the possibility that its findings might be wrong: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 per Sackville J (with whom North J agreed) at 241. Furthermore, as the Full Court of the Federal Court (O’Connor, Branson and Marshall JJ) observed in Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 at 558-9, there is no rule that a decision-maker concerned to evaluate the testimony of a person who claims to be a refugee in Australia may not reject an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds unless there are no possible explanations for any delay in the making of claims or for any evidentiary inconsistencies. Nor is there a rule that a decision-maker must hold a ‘positive state of disbelief’ before making an adverse credibility assessment in a refugee case.

[2016] AATA 4803

9 December 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction