1500427 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4724

1500427 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4724 (8 November 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1500427

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt

DATE:8 November 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 08 November 2016 at 1:49pm

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 applicants are citizens of Egypt. They applied for the visas [in] February 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] December 2014.

3. [The applicant] appeared before the Tribunal on 19 October to give evidence and present arguments on behalf of herself and her children. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

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

   SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT LAW

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

9. 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.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Background

10. The applicant is a [age] year old married woman from Egypt. The applicant has [young children] who are included in this application. 

11. The applicant’s [husband] has been [in] Australia since about 2006 and currently holds a [temporary] visa. He is not included in this application.

12. The applicant’s father is deceased. Her mother works at a [workplace] in Egypt where she is [an occupation]. One of her [siblings] lives in [Country 1], the other in Egypt.

13. The applicant completed a [qualification] in Egypt in May 2009.

14. The applicant first arrived in Australia in October 2009 on a [temporary] visa as her husband’s dependent. She visited Egypt from August to November 2010 with her husband. She travelled to Egypt for a second time [in] October 2013 and returned to Australia [in] December 2013.

15. As discussed in detail below the applicant claims that she and her children were kidnapped for ransom during her 2013 visit to Egypt. She also claims that one of her relatives was kidnapped in November 2013. She fears that she may be kidnapped and sexually assaulted if she returns to Egypt now. She also fears that her children may be kidnapped for ransom or in order to harvest their organs.

16. As also set out in detail below, I do not accept that the applicant and her children were kidnapped in 2013 or that there is a real chance she or her children will be abducted or face any other form of serious or significant harm if they return to Egypt.

    Primary application

17. In a statement provided with her primary application [in] February 2014 the applicant said that she and her children had been kidnapped by [men] who forced them into a car at gun point and held them in a dark room for a couple of days. The kidnappers told her that they wanted money and if her family paid an appropriate ransom she would be released, but if her family tried to trick them she would be killed. After a couple of days she was told that the ransom had been paid. She was blindfolded and returned to her home. She remained in bed for a couple of days as a result of the experience. Sometime after this she went to stay at her [Relative 1’s] house where she remained until she returned to Australia.

18. The applicant also provided a statement from her father-in-law. It states that while visiting him and his family in Egypt the applicant went out for a walk and did not return after half an hour as expected. He was concerned and tried to contact her by telephone, but without success. He received a call from someone with an unknown number who told him that he should pay a ransom of [amount]. He was shocked, but thought someone was tricking him. He contacted the applicant’s family but was unable to locate her. He reported the situation to the relevant authorities. Three hours later the kidnapper contacted him again and warned him not to contact the police. He was very concerned about the safety of the applicant and his grandchildren. He found a mediator with the assistance of someone who had faced a similar situation. The mediator told him not to contact the police. The mediator managed to contact the kidnappers and arranged the applicant’s release. The applicant’s father in law said that the kidnappers knew his son (the applicant’s husband) lived in Australia and they believed he was rich and could pay a large ransom.  After the applicant’s release from captivity she was very upset and the doctor advised her  father in law to take her somewhere far from the place she had been kidnapped, so he took them to her [Relative 1’s] house in [City 1].

19. In support of these claims the applicant provided photocopies of the following documents in Arabic together with English translations.

    ·An undated letter of complaint from her father in law addressed to the Police Commissioner at [City 2] which states that the applicant and her children had been missing since the morning and requests that action be taken.

    ·An investigation report from the [City 2] Police which states that a report was received from the applicant’s father in law at 1.10 pm [in] November 2013 regarding the applicant’s kidnapping. He stated that his son had telephoned him from Australia and warned him that people had threatened to kidnap him (the son) and his children. He also said that about two hours before the report was lodged the applicant had gone for a walk with her children to a [location] about 500 metres from his house and had not returned. He searched for her without success. About an hour before the report was lodged his son again contacted him and told him that the applicant and her children had been kidnapped and would not be returned unless a ransom of [amount] was paid. His son warned him not to report the matter to the police, but he went to the police so that they could take the necessary steps to recover the applicant and her children.

    ·A report from the [City 2] Police dated [in] November 2013 which states that the applicant’s father in law had attended to the police station to advise them that she and her children had returned home at 11 pm [in] November 2013 after a ransom was paid. It requests that the police cease searching for them.

20. In a submission dated 16 June 2016 the primary decision maker wrote to the applicant’s representative pointing out that her claims did not appear to disclose a convention link and asking for clarification. In response he submitted that she was at risk because of the general political situation. He noted that there was a rising level of criminal activity in Egypt and submitted that the applicant and her children had been abducted because they had been living in Australia and were wrongly believed to be Australian citizens and the kidnappers believed they would be able to pay ransom. No supporting evidence regarding the political situation or the level of criminal activity in Egypt was provided.

21. The applicant attended an interview with the primary decision maker [in] June 2014. According to the decision record of her case, a copy of  which was provided to the Tribunal, she repeated that claim that she and her children had been kidnapped [in] November 2013 while out for a walk. She said that the kidnappers had taken the telephone numbers of members of her family from her and contacted her father in law who paid the ransom they demanded. She and her children were released after a couple of days.

22. The applicant said that her father in law had lodged a police report before he realised that she had been kidnapped. He used a mediator to secure her release. After she returned home her father-in-law advised the police to close the case. The applicant did not lodge a complaint with the police after she was released because she was traumatised. Her family took her to a doctor who advised them to take her away from the area, so they took her to her [relative’s] house in [City 1]. She was too upset to travel immediately and remained in Egypt until [December] 2013.

23. The applicant said that neither she nor others in her family had received any threats prior to her abduction.  She said she believed that she had been kidnapped because her in-laws are wealthy and because she had been living overseas, but added that everyone was at risk of kidnapping. She claimed that one of her relatives who was only [an occupation] had also been kidnapped in November 2013 and a relative of her father who was with him was [shot].

24. In support of the latter claim the applicant provided a copy of an email dated [in] June 2014 from her brother in Egypt which states that a driver had been kidnapped from his car. It states that the driver’s [relative] was in the car at the time and had reported the kidnapping to the police and the Major General of the area had ordered the appropriate officials to act fast to identify and arrest the perpetrators. It gives no indication of when the kidnapping occurred.

25. The applicant said she was not sure what would happen to her if she returned to Egypt but noted the case of a young girl who had been kidnapped and raped in a village in Egypt. She provided a copy of a report of this incident. She also provided an email from her brother dated [in] June 2014 regarding the abduction and gang rape of young woman.

26. The applicant said that she feared being kidnapped again and feared that she would be sexually abused or killed if her father in law could not pay the ransom. She said that the police had not been helpful when she was kidnapped in 2013 and she did not believe that they could or would protect her if she was kidnapped again. She said that she would not be safe anywhere in Egypt.

27. [In] June 2014 the primary decision maker wrote to the applicant pointing out that the information in the [November] 2013 police report which states that her husband had received threats before she was kidnapped and that he had been contacted by the kidnappers after she was abducted was at odds with her evidence during the interview when she stated that her husband had not received any threats and that the ransom demand had been made to her father-in-law. [In] July 2014 the applicant responded that her husband had not received any threats and had not been contacted by the kidnappers at any time. She said that she believed that her father-in-law had most likely been forced to make these statements ensure that the police would take action as they did not care much about people who were abducted.

28. The primary decision maker also requested additional information on the applicant’s medical and psychological treatment after her abduction. The applicant provided documents showing that she was diagnosed with anxiety and prescribed a [medication] [in] November 2013 and that her [children] were prescribed [medications] [in] November 2013.

29. The primary decision maker found that the applicant’s evidence included significant inconsistencies and lacked credibility. In particular she noted the inconsistencies between the evidence contained in the [dated] November 2013 police report, the applicant’s father in law’s statement and the applicant’s evidence. She also noted that the police report dated [in] November 2013 states that the applicant was released by her abductors [in] November 2013, was at odds with the applicant’s evidence that she was released after a couple of days. She also noted that the applicant had provided evidence the she and her children had visited doctors [between certain dates in November 2013].

30. The delegate also reviewed evidence on abductions in Egypt which indicated that kidnappings for profit or as a result of political or tribal disputes were a problem in Egypt, but did not accept that there was a real chance that the applicant or her children would be victims of this crime if they returned to Egypt.

    Review application and hearing

31. The applicant applied for review of the primary decision on 12 January 2015. She provided a copy of the primary decision, but made no submissions in writing. She attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 19 October 2016.

32. I noted that the applicant’s primary application stated that she and her husband were separated, but this did not appear to be the case and asked why he was not included in her application. She said that she had never been separated from her husband and added that she had not been aware that this had been stated in her application until it was pointed out during her interview with the delegate. She said that her husband had not been included in her application on the advice of her representative who told her that she could lodge documents for him at a later date.

33. The applicant said that to the best of her knowledge her husband had never faced any significant problems in Egypt and she had no reason to believe that he would face any problems if he returned to Egypt now.

34. When asked if any member of her family or her husband’s family had experienced any significant problems in recent years she said that her mother and one of her [relatives] had supported the Muslim Brotherhood. They had not experienced any harm because of this but she believed that they would not be given assistance by the government if they experienced problems in future. She added that two of her husband’s [relatives] had been in the Muslim Brotherhood. She said that they had been beaten during demonstrations in the aftermath of the overthrow of President Morsi and had been forced to give up their membership of the group, but had not experienced any other harm.

35. The applicant said that her father in law was wealthy. She said that her husband had one [sibling] who lived in [Country 1] and [siblings] who lived in Egypt.  None of them had any involvement in politics and none of them had faced any problems in recent years.

36. The applicant claimed that she had been kidnapped [in] November 2013 with her [children] who were [young] at the time. She said that she had gone out for a walk after lunch [in the afternoon] and was walking on a road through family land near the local village when she was forced into a car by [a number of] men, one of whom was armed. She was blindfolded and hit on the head to make her stop crying and making noise. When she came to her senses she was alone in a small dark room. Her children were brought to her shortly afterwards. The kidnappers took her phone. Apart from telling her that she should be quiet and that she would not be harmed if her family paid the ransom they did not say anything to her. They brought her food during the time she was in captivity, but nothing else. She was released after [number] days.  She was left near her home. It was dark, but she does not know the exact time she was released.

37. I asked the applicant what she could tell me about the actions taken by her family after she was abducted. She said that her father-in-law contacted her family, who lived about [distance] away to see if she was with them, and searched the area for her without success before going to the police. He was told that he could not file a report for 24 hours. In order to make the police take action he told them that his son had been receiving threatening calls. Even so, the police were not interested and he had to deal with the matter himself. After he had been to the police he received a call from someone demanding ransom. He did not know who the person was. He found a mediator who would deal with the situation.

38. The applicant said that her husband did not know she had been kidnapped until the day after she was taken when he was contacted by his father.

39. The applicant said that after she was released she and her children were in a bad state and consulted doctors who prescribed medicine. The psychiatrist she consulted advised her family to send her away from the area, so she went to stay with [Relative 1].

40. I noted that the delegate had found a number of inconsistencies in her evidence regarding her abduction and advised her that I had similar concerns.

41. I noted that the undated complaint by her father-in-law addressed to Brigadier General/Police Commissioner of [City 2] indicated that she and her children had gone missing in the morning and observed that this appeared to be at odds with her evidence that she had gone for a walk [in the afternoon]. The applicant suggested that there must have been a problem with translation. The interpreter confirmed that the Arabic original of the complaint indicated that the applicant and her children had gone missing in the morning. The applicant said that this was a mistake as she had been abducted in the afternoon.

42. I asked the applicant to confirm that this complaint had been prepared prior to her father-in-law’s interview with the police [in] November 2013. She said that she did not believe he had provided anything in writing to the police before the interview and was unable to explain when or why the document had been prepared.

1. I noted that the police report dated [in] November 2013 stated that the police investigation had been commenced (inaugurated) at 1.10 pm, which also indicated that she had gone missing in the morning. She said that her father in law had made the report at 1.10 am. The interpreter confirmed that the Arabic original stated that the report had been made at 1.10, but was unable to determine whether this was in the afternoon or at night.

2. I noted if the applicant’s father in law had reported her abduction at 1 am and she had gone missing [in] November 2013 the police report would have been dated [the following day in] November 2013. She said that she had definitely been kidnapped [in] November 2013, but that things were different in Arabic countries and added the people who wrote the report might have been confused about the date.

3. I observed that it seemed unlikely that the applicant’s father in law would have waited until 1 am to report that she had gone missing if she and her children had been absent since [the] afternoon. She said that he had spent time searching for her and that the police station was an hour away and he had to wait some time after arriving to be able to make his report. 

4. I noted that [in] November 2011 police report stated that applicant had gone for a walk two hours before the report was made, which meant that she had gone out at about 11 in the morning which was at odds with her evidence that she had gone for a walk in the afternoon, or at about 11 o’clock at night which was also at odds with her earlier evidence and seemed highly unlikely as she had [young children] with her. The applicant said that she had not gone out at 11 am or 11 pm and she did not know why her father in law had made these statements.

5. I noted that the applicant’s father in law’s evidence indicated that he had been aware that she was kidnapped before he reported her disappearance to the police. I pointed out that the [date] November 2011 police report said that the applicant’s husband had called her father in law about an hour before the report was made and had told him that some people had kidnapped the applicant and her children and demanded a ransom, which was at odds with her evidence that her husband did not know about the abduction until the following day. The applicant said that her father-in-law was told that according to Egyptian law the police could not take a report until 24 hours after someone had disappeared and her father-in-law had to say this in order to get the police to act. I observed that it seemed extremely unlikely that the police would refuse to act in a case involving [young children]. The applicant maintained that her evidence was true and correct.

6. I noted that the applicant had provided the [date] November 2011 police report with her primary application and asked why she had not pointed out that it contained incorrect information at that time. Her explanation was somewhat confused. She said that she had not realised that it contained incorrect information until her interview with the delegate, but also confirmed that she had read it prior to lodging her application. She said that she had understood that she could give a full and correct explanation during her interview with the primary decision maker.

7. The applicant confirmed that her father in law had not gone to the police again until [later in] November 2013 when he reported that she had returned and asked that the search for her be stopped. I noted that the [later] November 2013 police report stated that the applicant and her children had returned home at 11 pm [in] November 2013, which was at odds with her evidence that she had been freed after [number] days. The applicant said that her father in law had not gone to the police immediately because he wanted to make that she and the children were safe and said that he had provided incorrect information about the date she had returned home because he did not want the police to know that he had not reported her return immediately. When asked for further clarification, the applicant said that her father in law did not want the kidnappers to see him going to the police. I suggested that he could have telephoned the police or asked someone else to make a report for him. The applicant said that this was not possible as her father in law had made the initial report and he alone could withdraw it and he had to be do this in person.

8. I advised the applicant that I had a number of concerns about the claim that she had been kidnapped, but even if I accepted that this had occurred, I would also have to consider whether she would be at risk of abduction if she returned to Egypt now.  The applicant said her husband’s family was known to be wealthy and her children where the first grandchildren in the family so they would continue to be a target for kidnappers. She said that she was particularly fearful that her children might be kidnapped as the abduction of children for harvesting of organs was widespread. She also said that two of her relatives had been kidnapped in November 2013.

9. I advised her that while I was aware that abductions were a problem in Egypt, it was not my understanding that they occurred so frequently that Egyptians in general or Egyptians with her background in particular faced a real chance of being a victim of this crime. I also advised her that I was not aware of any evidence of widespread kidnapping of children for the purpose of harvesting their organs. The applicant maintained that these were common problems throughout Egypt.  She said that she could provide evidence to support this. I observed that she had had ample time prior to the hearing to provide any evidence she wished to support her case and advised her that if she wished to provide further evidence it should be forwarded to the Tribunal by Monday 24 October 2016.

10. With regard to the two relatives the applicant claimed had been kidnapped, I noted that the email she had provided stated that only one person had been kidnapped. She agreed that this was correct and said that the other one had been [shot]. She said that she had asked her brother for a copy of the police report regarding the case but he had not been able to obtain it and the only information he had been able to obtain came from the internet. I asked if there was any connection between this kidnapping and her own abduction. She said that she did not know.

11. When asked about the information she had provided regarding the kidnap and rape of a young woman, the applicant said that this had been provided as an example of what could happen in Egypt.

12. I noted that the applicant had mentioned that some of her relatives and some of her husband’s relatives were supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, she had stated that she herself had no political involvement or even any views on politics and there was no suggestion that her relatives had experienced continuing problems because of their political views and it did not appear that she was at risk of harm on return to Egypt for political reasons. She said that her fears related to being abducted, not to her relatives’ political views.

    Findings of fact

13. After considering all of the evidence, I do not find the applicant to be a truthful or a credible witness. I found much of her evidence at the hearing confused and unconvincing. More significantly, there are a number of serious inconsistencies in the evidence the applicant has provided and I did not find her explanation for these discrepancies persuasive.

14. The applicant claims the she was abducted while out for a walk between 3 and 4 pm. The undated complaint by her father in law states that she went missing in the morning [in] November 2013. The police investigation apparently filed at 1.10 pm on the same date also indicates that she went missing on the morning [in] November 2013.  The applicant was unable to provide a plausible explanation for these discrepancies. She suggested that the former was a simple mistake and claimed that the [date] November 2013 report had been made at 1.10 am, not 1.10 pm. As pointed out at the hearing if the report was made at 1.10 am this suggests that she went for a walk with her children at 11 pm, which I find completely implausible. I also find the claim that the applicant’s father in law would have waited until 1 am to report that she missing if she had gone out [in] the afternoon and was expected back within half an hour implausible, particularly as she had [young children] with her.

15. As also noted above, according to the [date] November 2014 police investigation report the applicant’s father in law advised the police that the applicant’s husband had been warned that people were threatening to kidnap her and her children before she was abducted and that her husband had been contacted with a ransom demand about an hour before the report was made. This is at odds with the applicant’s evidence that her husband was never threatened or contacted with a ransom demand and did not learn that she had been kidnapped until the day after her disappearance. The applicant has endeavoured to explain these discrepancies by claiming that her father in law provided false information to the police on [date] November 2013 in order to make the police take action and search for her. I do not accept this explanation.

16. In the first place, statement from the applicant’s father in law provided [in] February 2014 clearly states that he had received a ransom demand before he went to the authorities. In these circumstances it is not plausible that he would have failed to advise the police of this demand and instead concocted a story about threats and demands made to the applicant’s husband in Australia.

17. Secondly, the applicant stated at the hearing that she had read the police report but had not explained that it contained inaccurate information when she lodged her application because she understood that she could do this during her interview. The applicant said nothing about the problems with the [date] November 2013 report when her claims were discussed at the interview. It was only after the delegate wrote to her [in] June 2014 pointing out the inconsistencies in the evidence she had provided that she claimed her father in law had concocted a story to ensure the police took immediate action. I believe that the applicant concocted the claim that her father in law had provided false information to the police on [date] November 2013 in order to overcome problems with her evidence.

18. I find the serious discrepancies between the information in the statement by the applicant’s father in law provided [in] February 2014 and the police reports dated [specific dates in] November 2013 and the evidence provided by the applicant herself a clear indication that the claim that she was kidnapped while in Egypt in 2013 is not true.

19. As also noted above, the applicant’s evidence about the length of time she was held captive is at odds with the information in the police report [later in] November 2013 which indicates that she was released [in] November 2013, not four days after being abducted [in] November 2013 as claimed at the hearing.  When this was pointed out at the hearing she claimed that her father in law was unable to report her return to the police immediately as he was afraid that the kidnappers would see him visiting the police station and that he had lied to the police because he was concerned that that he would face problems because he had not reported her return in a timely manner. I do not accept this explanation. Even if it is true that the applicant’s father in law had to attend the police station in person to formally report that she had been released, I do not accept that it was impossible for him to telephone them or send a representative to update them on the situation and explain why he could not immediately attend in person and find the claim that he did not do so because he was afraid of the consequences of failing to inform the police of developments in a timely manner implausible. I find this to be another example of the applicant concocting claims to overcome problems with her evidence. I find the discrepancies between the information in the police report [later in] November 2013 and the information provided by the applicant herself another indication that the claim that she and her children were kidnapped.

20. After considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not accept that the applicant and her children were kidnapped and held for ransom in November 2013. I find that she concocted this claim in an attempt to obtain protection in Australia.

21. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the police reports dated [date] November 2013 and [date] November 2013, the undated complaint prepared by the applicant’s father in law and her father in law’s statement which were provided to the Department of Immigration [in] November 2013. However, as discussed above, all of them contain information which is at odds with the information provided by the applicant. According to the applicant this is because they contain mistakes or false information knowingly provided by her father in law. I have given no weigh to these documents.

22. I have also noted the medical certificate provided by the applicant which indicates that she was diagnosed with anxiety [in] November 2013. However, there is no information on the cause of her anxiety and nothing in the certificate which causes me to alter my findings regarding her claim that she was kidnapped. Nor is there any suggestion that the applicant was suffering from anxiety when the hearing was conducted. The hearing invitation sent to the applicant asks if she is experiencing any problems which might affect her ability to take part in the hearing, but she raised no such issues then or during the hearing.

23. I have also noted the certificate dated [in] November 2013 which states that the applicant’s children were prescribed [medications]. However, neither certificate gives any indication why these medications were prescribed and they do not contain any information which causes me to alter my findings regarding the applicant’s claim that she was kidnapped.

24. I have also considered the applicant’s claim that one of her relatives was abducted in November 2013 and another was [shot]. As noted above, at the hearing she initially claimed that two of her relatives were kidnapped, but when I observed that this was at odds with the information in the email she had provided she agreed that only one person had been abducted. In these circumstances and in light of the applicant’s general lack of credibility and willingness to concoct claims and in the absence of any evidence apart from an email from the applicant’s brother which states merely that a man was kidnapped from his car some time before June 2014, I do not accept that one of the applicant’s relatives was kidnapped in November 2013. Furthermore, even if I accept that one of her relatives was abducted in November 2013 there is nothing in the evidence before which suggests his kidnapping means that his abductors or anyone else would seek to abduct or harm her or her children if she returned to Egypt now.

    Are the applicant and her children at risk of abduction if they return to Egypt?

25. I have considered the applicant’s claim that kidnapping is common in Egypt and that she and her children are at risk of being abducted by people seeking ransom. She claims that she and her family are at particular risk because her in-laws are wealthy and her children are the first grandchildren in the family and because she has lived in Australia so she will be perceived as foreign and wealthy. She fears that she will be sexually assaulted if she is kidnapped. She also claims that kidnapping of children in order to harvest their organs is widespread and her children are at risk of being kidnapped for this reason.

26. Precise information on the number of kidnappings in Egypt in recent years could not be located. Reports indicate there was a significant increase in the number of cases of kidnapping in Egypt after January 2011 as part of an overall increase in crime as a result of the break down in law and order following the overthrow of President Mubarak, but the situation has improved somewhat in recent years[1]. According to an article in the Financial Times[2] dated 1 May 2013, prior to 2011 kidnapping for ransom was rare in Egypt outside tribal areas in the Sinai Peninsula, but reported cases jumped from 107 in 2010 to 412 in 2012. The article also notes that according to officials the number of cases of kidnapping had begun to fall in the months before the article was published.  The US Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) Report for 2014[3] also noted an increase in kidnappings after 2011. The 2016 OSAC report states that following 2014 the visibility of police increased and crime has generally levelled off.

    [1] DFAT Country Information Report Egypt 24 November 2015 p 7

    [2] CX317128"Egyptians become victims of soaring crime rate", Financial Times, The (FT.com) - United Kingdom, 01 May 2013

    [3] CX1B9ECAB5753: "Egypt 2014 Crime and Safety Report", United States of America (USA): Department of State Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), 18 March 2014,

27. Information on likely targets of kidnappers is also limited. According to the OSAC reports of 2014 and 2016, most kidnappings occurred within the local community and often involved motives such as the settlings of disputes between neighbours, rivals or tribes. Targets were often wealthy and children were often targeted with most cases were settled quickly following payment of a ransom. The 2013 US International Freedom Report[4] reported victims of kidnapping at that time were mostly wealthy people in urban areas and mostly Christians in rural areas. There are also a number of reports which claim that Christian women may be kidnapped to force them to convert[5] and reports of kidnappings and disappearances carried out by security agencies for political reasons[6].

    [4] CX325230: "2013 Report on International Religious Freedom", United States of America (USA): Department of State also State Department, 28 July 2014, See for example, Christian Solidarity International “Tell my mother I miss her: Disappearance, forced conversions and forced marriages of Coptic Christian women in Egypt, July 2012

    [6] See for example CX6A26A6E10430: "New phone app tracks forced disappearances in Egypt", Washington Post, The, 07 October 2016, (Opens in a new window)

28. It is clear from the evidence that wealthy people and the children of wealthy people are sometimes kidnapped for ransom. However, none of the evidence before me suggests that this is such a common occurrence that any Egyptian from a wealthy family or any Egyptian who is perceived to be wealthy because they have live abroad faces a real chance of being kidnapped. The Financial Times article indicates that kidnapping peaked in about 2012 when fewer than 500 cases were reported. This article and the OSAC report both indicate that kidnappings have reduced at least to some degree since that time. Even taking into account the possibility of significant under reporting, the number of kidnappings is small compared to Egypt’s population of about 89 million people[7].

    [7] DFAT Country Information Report Egypt 24 November 2015 p 4

29. In the applicant’s case, I accept that her in-laws are well off. However, there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that she or her children or any member of her husband’s family has been kidnapped or threatened with abduction in the past and in light of the country information set out above I am not satisfied that she or her children face a real chance of being abducted because they come for a relatively wealthy family or because they will be perceived to be wealthy because the applicant and her husband have lived in Australia for a number of years.

1. In considering this claim I have noted the applicant’s claim that she fears she will be sexually assaulted if she is kidnapped. As I do not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will be kidnapped, it follows that I do not accept that she will be sexually assaulted while she is held captive.  Furthermore, while it has not been specifically submitted that the applicant is at risk of being abducted and sexually assaulted because she is a woman, I have also considered this possibility. However, I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that women are generally at risk being abducted and sexually assaulted in Egypt and I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of being abducted and sexually assaulted because she is a woman.

2. I have also considered the applicant’s claim that her children are at risk of being abducted in order to harvest their organs.

3. According to a UN report dated April 2012[8] there had been a noticeable rise in child abductions, largely as a result of the breakdown in law and order following 2011. The report states that anecdotal evidence appears to indicate the main motives for these abductions were for ransom and to obtain body parts. According to an organisation called the Coalition on Children, most of the people who contacted the group regarding such abductions were poor and had no connections.  According to an article published in 13 October 2014[9] the government’s National Council for Childhood and Motherhood (NCCM) reported that 337 cases of violence against children had been recorded in the period from January to July 2014, of which 75 had to do with child abduction or trafficking. The motives for these crimes included seeking ransom and even organ trafficking.

   [8] CX284856: "Rising tide of child abductions", Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) -United Nations, 11 April 2012, (Opens in a new window)

4. On 21 October 2016 the applicant provided a number of translated reports regarding kidnapping of children in Egypt. These reports include a number of case studies, but provide limited insight into the overall number of cases of abduction and who is at risk of being kidnapped. One article dated 4 August 2015 states that according to the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood 612 children were kidnapped between January 2013 and March 2014. The cases included children abducted by one parent and children abducted for ransom, a phenomenon which the article stated had increased as a result of  the breakdown or law and order after January 2011. Other reports suggest there is significant under-reporting of cases and that children had also been abducted in order to harvest their organs or to use them as beggars.

5. While it appears that some children may have been abducted in order to harvest their organs in Egypt, there is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that this practice is so widespread that all children in Egypt are at risk of being abducted for this purpose. If the practice was prevalent that most children were at risk of such harm, I believe this would have been made clear in articles such as the UN report and that it would also have been mentioned in other reports, such as the DFAT country reports. Furthermore, the evidence currently available suggests that children of poor families are more likely to be victims of this crime. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the applicant’s children face a real chance of being abducted in order to harvest their organs or for any other reason if they return to Egypt.

6. After considering all of the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant or her children will be kidnapped for any reason if they return to Egypt.

   Are the applicant and her children at risk of any other form or serious or significant harm if they return to Egypt?

7. Apart from the claim that the applicant and her children are at risk of being abducted, no claims have been made by her or her children.

8. As noted above, while some of the applicant’s early submissions appeared to suggest that she also feared she would be harmed for reasons of imputed political opinion because some members of her family had belonged to or supported the Muslim Brotherhood. However, when asked about this at the hearing she stated clearly that she did not fear harm for this reason. Furthermore, while I am aware that some members of former members of the Muslim Brotherhood may be at risk of harm in Egypt, I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that relatives of low level members or supporters of the group would be of adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities. I also note that the applicant faced no problems because her relatives were known members or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood when she visited Egypt in following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in mid-2013.

   CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS FOR PROTECTION UNDER (REFUGEE STATUS)

   Findings in relation to s.36(2)a

9. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant or her children face a real chance of persecution on return to Egypt for any of the reasons in Convention in the reasonably foreseeable future. I therefore I do not accept that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Egypt.  I am not satisfied that she is a person in respect of 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 )

10. The applicant’s application for complementary protection relies on the same claims as those put forward in her refugee application. As discussed above, I did not find the applicant to be a credible witness and I do not accept these claims. Therefore there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that there is a real risk that she or her children will suffer significant harm if she returns to Egypt.

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

11. I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer significant harm

CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

1. 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

2. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

   Roslyn Smidt
   Member

   
   
   

24 November 2015