1419141 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3966

1419141 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3966 (7 June 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1419141

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt

DATE:7 June 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 07 June 2016 at 9:52am

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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

2. The applicant, who is a citizen of Egypt, arrived in Australia [in] August 2012 and applied for a protection visa [in] September 2013. The delegate refused to grant the visas [in] November 2014.

3. The applicant’s [husband] was included in this application. He died [in] May 2015. As a result the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as there is no valid review application. 

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 March 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

5. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

   THE RELEVANT LAW

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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’).

10. 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

11. The applicant is [an age] year old widow of Coptic Christian religion from Cairo in Egypt. Her husband passed away in Australia [in] May 2015. All of her children now live in Australia. [Some have applications for permanent residence; others have been granted this already]. She has [siblings] who live in her local area in Cairo.

12. The applicant worked at a [business] until she retired. She receives a pension.

13. In essence the applicant claims that she is at risk of serious harm in Egypt because of her Coptic Christian religion.

14. In her written and oral submission to the Department the applicant said that she lived in [a certain] area in Cairo. Many Christians lived in the area, but there were also many members of the Muslim Brotherhood and many Salafis. 

15. The applicant said that she had not applied for protection in Australia on her first visit in April to June 2012 because she had wanted to return home. However, the situation deteriorated after her return.

16. The applicant said that she was a Coptic Christian who regularly attended her local church where she was involved in a ministry for women.

17. The applicant said that since the revolution that overthrew the Mubarak government the streets in her area have been unsafe. She was spat at on the streets and rocks were thrown at her. She was called an infidel and told to wear a veil. On one occasion she was shopping at a supermarket that was owned by a Christian when it was attacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. The police were eventually called and came, but by that time the attackers had left. After this she only went out to go to Church or shopping or for emergencies.

18. The applicant said that she was threatened a few times on her way to church by a local man who held a small knife and threatened to kill her and her husband and told her “we will force you to leave the country”. She said that this occurred mostly after her [child] travelled abroad in late March 2013 and she had her husband began to live alone. As a result of these threats she stopped going to church or leaving the house alone.

19. In mid-April 2013 the applicant went out to get some medicines when a veiled woman started to speak to her and then pulled her hair, pushed her down, kicked her in the stomach and insulted her.  Some people came to help her, but others laughed, including the man who had threatened her with a knife who told her that there was worse to come and she would wish for death.  She believed this threat.

20. Following this the applicant and her husband went to stay with her [sibling] and remained there until they came to Australia.  The applicant did not go out and did not experience any further problems during this time.

21. The applicant said that she feared she would be killed if she continued to practice her religion in Egypt. She said that she did not have the resources to move anywhere else in Egypt as she could not afford the rent and in any event she would not be safe no matter where she went.

22. The delegate noted that the situation had changed in Egypt since her departure, pointing out that President Morsi had been overthrown and the Muslim Brotherhood was banned. The applicant maintained that she was still risk of harm because of her religion in Egypt.

23. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant could not return to her old rent controlled apartment as it was no longer available and her pension was not sufficient to cover the rent on a new apartment.  She added that all of her family in Egypt live in the same local area.

24. The applicant provided a letter dated [in] January 2014 from [Father A] of [a church] which states that she is a practicing Coptic Christian and had been under considerable pressure because of sectarian violence and persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt.  It submits that despite the overthrow of President Morsi the situation for Copts has been deteriorating due to the anti-Christian attitudes of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists.

25. The delegate accepted that the applicant had been verbally harassed, threatened and assaulted on one occasion and that as a result she was fearful. However, she did not accept that the applicant had been targeted in the past and, after considering information regarding the current situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt from DFAT and the US Department of State found that her fear of persecution, including the fear that she would not be able to attend Church, was not well-founded.

26. The applicant applied for review of that decision on 24 November 2014.

27. On 29 March 2016 the Tribunal received a submission from her representatives. In essence it states that the applicant continues to rely on the claims made in her initial application and submitted that the DFAT advice relied on by the delegate had overlooked many incidents of persecution since 2013 and that the delegate had failed to properly assess information on the current situation in Egypt. The submission refers to evidence from a range of sources including a 2012 US Department of State Report which notes that the Egyptian state had failed to protect minorities including Copts;  a Carnegie Endowment of International Peace Report which states that attacks on Copts include a sectarian element and that Egypt’s out dated laws and authoritarian institutions have made Copts a target of social conflict and one of the most vulnerable groups in Egypt and DFAT advice to travellers to reconsider any travel plans due to the threat of terrorist attacks and kidnapping and reports on terrorist acts over the last few years.

28. The applicant attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 30 March 2016. I asked her why she feared returning to Egypt. She said that she feared that she would be insulted, forced to take off her cross and to cover her head and that she might be beaten. She said that she was particularly at risk of facing these problems if she went to Church.

29. I noted that the applicant had previously stated that she lived in an area where there were many Christians. She said that some Christians lived there, but the majority were Salafists or members of the Muslim Brotherhood. She said that her sisters lived in the same area.

30. The applicant repeated the claims made in earlier submissions regarding the problems she had faced prior to her departure for Australia in June 2013, including being trapped in a supermarket, being threatened by a local man with a knife a number of times in about March 2013 and being assaulted by a woman in April 2013. She said that she did not know either of these people personally but they lived in the local area.  I asked the applicant who had come to her aid when these things occurred. She said that they were people from the local area. I asked if they were Christians or Muslims. She said that she did not know.

31. I asked that applicant to tell me about the worst problem she had experienced before the events of 2013. She said that the situation had always been the same and she had always been insulted and sworn at. She said that the man with the knife had begun to threaten her in 2012 and this had occurred every time she went out. She said that she had also been threatened and rocks had been thrown at her.

32. I asked the applicant what her siblings had told her about the current situation in her area in Cairo. She said that they were not happy.  She said that one of her [relatives] lived near a Mosque and she was insulted every day.  Another [relative] lived near a Mosque where Christians were insulted by people speaking through a microphone.  On one occasion about a year ago one of her [relatives] was attacked and beaten near a Mosque for no reason. She said that this often happened near Mosques.

33. I advised the applicant that I was aware of the problems that Copts had faced during the time that the Muslim Brotherhood was in power and particularly in the period immediately after the overthrow of President Morsi and that I was also aware that there continued to be occasional outbreaks of sectarian violence targeting Coptic Christians, particularly in poorer areas. However, advice from DFAT and others indicated that Coptic Christians who lived in middle class urban areas, as she appeared to do, were not generally at risk of serious harm because of their religion. I also advised her that it was my understanding that she would be able to seek protection from the police if someone threatened her in the street as had happened in the past. The applicant maintained that she would not be safe if she returned to her home in Cairo. She said that the current government was more concerned about protecting the borders and the local police were afraid of extremists groups and would not interfere.

34. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant would be at risk of persecution because of her religion if she returned to Egypt. She referred to the submission provided immediately before the hearing which she submitted demonstrated that Coptic Christians were at risk of serious harm in Egypt. She noted that despite the banning of the Muslim Brotherhood the group still had millions of members in Egypt living free in the community and they blamed Copts of the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood.

35. I observed that most of the victims on the lists of terrorist attacks which she had provided appeared to be police and security personnel and only a small number where identified as Christians which appeared to suggest that Christians were not a particular target of these attacks. The representative agreed that police and security personnel were frequent targets, but said that Christians had also been attacked. She said that there were frequent attacks on Copts in Egypt and they were reported in Coptic television channels and other Christian media outlets, but were not reported by the mainstream media.

36. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant had been threatened by people from powerful extremist groups who threaten minority groups. When I asked for clarification she said that the applicant did not know who the woman who had attacked her was, but the man who had threatened her with a knife was known to be a Salafist.

37. The applicant’s representative said that the applicant’s fears were based on the problems she had faced in the past and the news she received from her family. In addition she had stopped going to Church because of her fears and she would be locked in which amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment.

    Country Information

38. 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.

39. Coptic Christians comprise some 10 per cent of Egypt’s population of 83 million. They are present in most parts of the country and are represented at all levels of society. Copts have access to all levels of education, and are present in most areas of employment. There are prominent and influential Copts in politics, business and the arts.  However, Copts have long faced some degree of societal discrimination. Few Copts hold senior positions in institutions such as the military, universities and the public service. There is also sporadic harassment of Christians in some areas, for example targeting women with uncovered hair.  Discrimination and prejudice are more of a problem in poorer urban and rural area.

40. 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

41. 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.

42. 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 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 Salafist parties and in the frequency of negative and sometimes inflammatory anti-Christian statements which in turn contributed to an increase of threats and attacks on Christian communities in some areas.[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

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. In their Thematic Report of November 2015 DFAT stated that it was their assessment that the day to day life for most Coptic Christians was not overtly affected by communal tensions adding that

    ..most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity. However, small-scale disputes (such as neighbourhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community-level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas. Spikes in communal tensions can also coincide with broader political upheavals (2.20).

46. 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]

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

47. The November 2015 Thematic Report also indicates that Copts have access to state protection in Egypt. According to the report:

    DFAT assesses that on a day-to-day basis in urban areas, the state has a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts, and generally does so. Copts facing harassment are able to go to a local police station for protection in these areas. DFAT assesses that, under the Sisi Government, the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances. However, societal discrimination may impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.

48. Egypt has faced serious domestic problems with jihadi violence which are reported to have worsened since the 2013 coup. Most attacks have occurred in the Sinai Peninsula and have targeted the police and the army, although some have been aimed at tourists.[4]  This violence is carried out by a range of extremists Islamist groups, including ISIS, Muslim, Salafists and others. Some former Muslim Brotherhood members also advocate violence[5].

    [4] House of Commons Briefing Paper 7146 Egypt Under Sisi 26 February 2016 pp 11-12

    [5] "Egypt’s escalating Islamist Insurgency ", Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 01 October 2015, CISEC96CF13858

49. Not all Egyptian Salafists advocate or participate in violence.  Salafists have typically refrained from political participation and focused on preaching their conservative religious ideas and engaging in social welfare activities aimed at changing society from below. In recent years Salafist political parties have been formed in Egypt, but they accept peaceful political action as a vehicle for change and reject the use of violence. While some Salafists supported Morsi, the main Salafist parties supported his removal.[6]

    [6] CXBD6A0DE15909: "The Future of Political Salafism in Egypt and Tunisia", Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 16 November 2015,

    CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS UNDER S.36(2)(a) (REFUGEE STATUS )

50. I accept that the applicant is a Coptic Christian and a regular Church goer.

51. I accept that the applicant was trapped in a supermarket which was attacked by a violent Islamist mob sometime after she returned from Australia in 2012. I accept that she was assaulted by a woman in the street in April 2013. I also accept that she was threatened by a man with a small knife on more than one occasion in 2013, although, I am sceptical of the claim at the hearing that this occurred repeatedly from some time in 2012 until March 2013 as this is at odds with evidence in her initial statement that she was only threatened a few times, mostly after March 2013. Finally, I accept that the applicant was spat at and harassed in the street in 2013, although again I am doubtful of the claim that this occurred frequently as this is at odds with the applicant’s evidence that she rarely went out for much of that period.

52. In any event, whatever the frequency and duration of these problems they all occurred during a time of heightened political and religious turmoil and violence. As discussed above, DFAT advise that there have been significant changes in Egypt since mid-2013. The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned and many of its members have been arrested. The level of sectarian violence and attacks on Coptic Christians has reduced substantially and Copts can generally access police protection if they face harassment such as that experienced by the applicant in 2013. In these circumstances, I do not accept that there is a real chance that that the applicant would face serious harm amounting to persecution on return to Egypt because of her religion.

53. In reaching this conclusion I noted the applicant’s evidence that she was unable to attend church during her final months in Cairo because of the violence in the streets and considered whether she would be prevented from practicing her religion for this or any other reason if she returned to Egypt. There is no evidence before me which suggests that Coptic Christians are denied the right to practice their religion by Egypt law or government practice. Nor is there any credible evidence which that applicant would be prevented from attending Church in Cairo if she returned home because of violence or threats from extremists. I do not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant would be prevented from practicing her religion.

54. I have also considered the applicant’s claim that the police are fearful of extremists and will not act against them. This is at odds with the advice from DFAT and with the evidence for a number of sources that the authorities banned the Muslim Brotherhood and arrested many of its members and that they are actively combating extremist groups. I do not accept that the Egyptian authorities would fail to protect the applicant because they are fearful of extremists.

55. I have also noted the applicant’s evidence that one of her [relatives] lives near a mosque which broadcasts anti-Christian messages and another [relative] is constantly insulted because she also lives near a mosque. She also claimed that another [relative] was assaulted near a mosque for no apparent reason about a year ago. I accept these claims. However, DFAT advise, and I accept, that this is not typical of the experience of Christians in Cairo and it  does change my finding that the applicant’s fear of harm for reasons of religion is not well-founded. Furthermore, it is unclear why the applicant’s [relative] was assaulted and the fact that this unfortunate attack occurred does not alter my finding that the applicant does not face a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution because of her religion.

56. Finally, I have considered the applicant’s adviser’s submissions and the evidence she has provided on the current situation in Egypt. Much of it confirms the advice from DFAT which also states that Copts face some discrimination in a range of areas and that outbreaks of sectarian violence continue to occur periodically in some areas. However, in my view the documentary the evidence provided does not support the claim that Copts in general or the applicant in particular face a real chance of being persecuted for reasons of religion. The lists of victims of terrorist attacks includes relatively few Christian and, dreadful as these attacks are, the number of victims is relatively small compared to Egypt’s population of over 80 million people. Furthermore, I do not accept that there are daily attacks on Copts which are ignored by media and other observers. It there was a level of violence against Copts which meant that all Copts including the applicant were at risk of persecution, I am confident that this would be reported by the media and reflected in reports such as those prepared by DFAT and the UK Home Office.

57. After considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted on return to Egypt for reasons of religion.

58. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the January 2014 letter from [Father A]. However, it provides no specific evidence regarding the applicant’s situation in Egypt. Furthermore, the view that the situation for Copts is deteriorating in Egypt is based on the events of 2013, and, according to more recent advice from DFAT and others discussed above, the situation has changed significantly since that time.

59. As no other claims have been made I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will be persecuted if she returns to Egypt for any of the reasons in the Convention.

60. In considering the applicant’s claim for protection I have noted that she no longer has access to the apartment where she lived with her husband prior to leaving Egypt, that her husband has passed away and that all of her children currently reside in Australia. However, I also note that she has a pension and that her siblings, including the [sibling] with whom she lived before coming to Australia, continue to reside in Cairo and while the applicant’s wish to remain in Australia with her children in these distressing circumstances is understandable, this situation does not alter my view that she would not face a real chance of persecution  for any reason if she returned to Egypt.

    Findings in relation to Refugee Status s.36(2)a

61. After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively and taking account of all the relevant evidence, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that she will suffer serious harm amounting to persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future for a Convention reason if she returns to Egypt and therefore I do not accept that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. I am not satisfied that she is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and she therefore does not satisfy the criteria set out in s.36(2)a.

    CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS UNDER S.36(2)(aa) (COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION )

62. The applicant’s application for complementary protection relies on the same claims as those put forward in her refugee application. In summary, she fears that she will be harassed and threatened or beaten in the street if she returns to Egypt. As discussed above, the situation has changed significantly since the applicant’s departure from Egypt. According to advice from sources such as DFAT and the UK Home Office, while Copts still face some discrimination and there are occasional outbreaks of sectarian violence, particularly in poorer rural areas, harassment such as that experienced by the applicant in the past has greatly reduced and Copts are not generally at risk of ill-treatment in Egypt today and can seek protection from the police should problems arise. In these circumstances I do not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant will be harassed, threatened or beaten in the streets in Cairo or that she will face any other problems amounting to significant harm if she returns to Egypt.

63. The applicant has also claimed that she will be confined to her home and unable to go to Church because it is too dangerous for her to go out and she would be too fearful to leave her home. As I do not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant will be harassed or harmed if she goes out in Cairo, I do not accept that she would be confined to her home because of the danger she would face if she went out.

64. I have also noted that the applicant’s claim that she no longer has access to the apartment where she lived with her husband prior to leaving Egypt, that her husband has passed away and that all of her children currently reside in Australia. However, as noted she has a pension and her siblings, including the [sibling] with whom she lived before coming to Australia, continue to reside in Cairo. This situation does not alter my view that she would not face a real risk of suffering significant harm if she returned to Egypt.

65. After considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that there is a real risk that the applicant would face significant harm for any reason if she returned to Egypt.

    Findings in relation to Refugee Status s.36(2)aa

66. 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 she will suffer significant harm.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

67. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

68. 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).

69. 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

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

    Roslyn Smidt
    Member