1419141 (Refugee)

This decision concerns an application for a Protection visa by a Coptic Christian woman from Cairo, Egypt. The applicant claimed she faced a real risk of serious harm amounting to persecution in Egypt due to her religion. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia owed the applicant protection obligations under the *Refugee Convention* (s 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth)) or under complementary protection provisions (s 36(2)(aa)).

The core legal issue was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Egypt. This involved assessing the current country information regarding the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the applicant's specific claims of past harassment and threats, and the capacity and willingness of Egyptian authorities to provide protection. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant would be prevented from practicing her religion or confined to her home due to fear.

The Tribunal considered evidence from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and other sources regarding the political and sectarian climate in Egypt. While acknowledging past incidents of sectarian violence and discrimination against Coptic Christians, particularly during periods of political upheaval, the Tribunal found that the situation had significantly improved since mid-2013 under the Sisi administration. DFAT advised that Coptic Christians generally had access to state protection, and that while sporadic violence continued, the scale and number of attacks had decreased substantially. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had experienced some harassment and threats in the past, but found these occurred during a time of heightened turmoil and did not establish a real chance of persecution upon return. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would be prevented from practicing her religion or that she faced a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).