1500531 (Refugee)

1500531 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4372 (26 August 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1500531
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt
MEMBER:Rachel Homan
DATE:26 August 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 26 August 2016 at 9:27am
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants, who the Tribunal accepts are citizens of Egypt, applied for the visas [in] April 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] December 2014.
The first named applicant (hereafter referred to as ‘the applicant’) appeared before the Tribunal on 13 May 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The second named applicant declined the Tribunal’s hearing invitation and did not appear at the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
The issues arising in this review are whether the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention; and, if not, whether 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 the applicants will suffer significant harm.
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has determined that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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.
Visa application
According to information provided in their visa application forms, the applicants are a married couple, who arrived in Australia as the holders of [temporary] visas [in] March 2014. The applicant is [age] and the second named applicant is [age]. Only the applicant completed a Part B application form making his own protection claims
The applicant claimed to have been born in Aswan, Egypt and to belong to the Coptic Orthodox Christian religion. The applicant lived in [another country] between July 1973 and May 1994 and previously visited Australia in 2005 and between December 2007 and May 2008.
The applicant’s claims for protection were set out in a statutory declaration in the English language made [in] April 2014. According to his statutory declaration, the applicant holds a qualification in [profession]. After his retirement, the applicant began serving in [a church] in [suburb], Giza. The church was located approximately [distance] away from his own home in [suburb]. The applicant provided the following services within his church:
·[duties deleted];;
·[duties deleted];
·[duties deleted];
·[duties deleted]; and
·[duties deleted].
The applicant claimed that the Christian families he was visiting resided in areas inhabited by a great number of “bearded Islamist extremists” who were armed with different kinds of weapons. The extremists used the poverty and need of the Christian families to try to convert them to Islam through various methods. The applicant personally rescued two poor Christian families from these Islamists.
The first case occurred towards the end of 2012 and involved a young lady whose husband had died, leaving her to raise [children], and who had no income or pension apart from the financial support provided by the church and some Christian philanthropists. Her Muslim neighbours tried many times to seduce her with money and gifts to her and her children in order to convert them to Islam. The applicant was able to move the widow and her [children] to a house adjacent to the [church] to be looked after by the priests and servants there.
The second case the applicant was involved in occurred during 2013. [Some children], from a very poor family of [a number of] children were being harassed on their way to school and back by Muslim youths who tried to threaten them and offer them money to convert. The applicant was able to provide the [children] with a car and driver to drive them to their schools and back.
The Islamist extremists knew that the applicant was the reason their attempts to “convert their prey to Islam” were unsuccessful and began searching for him. The applicant discovered this when Copts from that area told the applicant that the extremists were asking about him and his whereabouts and the area in which he lived.
On the evening of [a day in] January 2014 at 7 PM, whilst the applicant was on his way to [Church] to attend the Nativity mass, the applicant was pushed to the ground. The applicant’s attackers pointed weapons at him but some passers-by saved the applicant from being murdered. The passers-by pulled the attackers away from the applicant and told the applicant to go quickly.
The next day, the applicant realised that the men who had attacked him were at the top of his street. The men made the applicant feel afraid to leave his house and he feared for his and his wife’s lives. The applicant and his wife decided to leave and stay in another area, approximately 30 km away from their house, in [location] with their daughter and [another family member].
The applicant and his wife left at early dawn on [the following day in] January 2014. They chose to stay with their daughter as she was also facing extreme persecution and a horrible atmosphere towards Christians in her home area. Although they knew their daughter faced these problems, the applicants felt there was no area free from persecution in Egypt and so they decided to stay with her to help make sure she was safe.
The applicant claimed that these incidents occurred after the revolution of 25 January 2011 and the collapse of the police force. The chaos increased in 2012 and 2013 with the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood. Christian families were increasingly being threatened to change their religion. Women and girls who wore crosses and walked on the streets unveiled were being chased and threatened. The Islamists had claimed that churches were full of weapons and ammunition and a number of churches had been burned in Cairo, Alexandria and Upper Egypt. Christian congregations were being harassed whilst worshipping in their churches or in the streets on their way to church. All of these things caused the applicants to live in fear, terror and instability. For this reason, the applicants took advantage of their [child]’s invitation to visit [Australia] over the Christmas holidays.
Although the applicant was granted a visa in October 2013, he did not travel until March 2014 for two reasons. First, the applicant was unable to leave his daughter and [another family member] alone. The applicant’s [family member] was eventually granted a visa in January 2014. Once [this family member] was granted a visa, the applicants notified their [child] in Australia and [that child] sent money for the airline tickets. Once they received the money, they booked the first available flights to Australia.
Submitted with visa application were copies of the applicants’ Egyptian passports and several untranslated identity documents.
Additional evidence to the Department
A further statutory declaration was submitted to the Department, dated [in] October 2014. In that statutory declaration, the applicant described his general suffering as a Copt in Egypt and his personal suffering due to his service in the church.
The applicant stated that he was considered one of the persons responsible for his church. This was because he was a very active servant of his church and lived close by. The applicant had a very close and trustful relationship with the priests of the church. Whenever anything urgent arose, the applicant was called upon by the church fathers.
The applicant stated that previously there had been some degree of law and order in Egypt, however, the police collapsed after the revolution of 25 January 2011. The Islamists burnt or damaged police stations in Cairo and other provinces and more than 23,000 prisoners escaped, most of whom were members of the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafists. Mohamad Morsi became President and put members of the Muslim Brotherhood in important posts around the country. The Copts felt the authorities were indifferent when it came to investigating their complaints. The authorities twisted the facts and it was the Copts who were accused if they went to make complaints to the police.
At about 11 PM one night in May 2013, the applicant was telephoned by one of his church’s priests and told to go to the church at once as the church was being attacked with rocks and bricks. The applicant went to church and found large and small rocks scattered around the church, some of which had broken the windows. The night guard who was unarmed told the applicant that a large group of people had done this and then escaped. The applicant called the [suburban] police station and reported the incident. An officer and [soldiers] with weapons in a van came to the church but treated the applicant harshly and aggressively. The officer told the applicant that he was a liar and had interrupted the work of the police and was trying to stir sectarian violence in the area. The police officer told the applicant that he had no proof that Islamists were responsible for the attack. The applicant was taken to the police station and was not allowed to leave until the priest arrived. The applicant was forced to make a written undertaking that he would not disturb the police or call them over such matters in the future. The applicant left the police station at about 2 AM.
In March 2012, the applicant was stopped by a police officer on [a suburban] Street and told to remove the cross hanging on the rear-view mirror of his car. When the applicant refused, he was called a Christian infidel and the officer reached inside the car and pulled off the cross. The applicant complained to the police station but was told the matter was too trivial and he was obliged to obey the police officers’ orders.
In September 2012, the applicant’s car broke down. He took the car to the nearest mechanic, who refused to fix the car because he considered the applicant to be an infidel.
Shortly after the 2011 revolution, some Islamists built a small mosque in a lane directly behind the applicant’s church, including a prayer tower from which sermons cursing Christians were broadcast, especially during the church’s prayer times. No one came to pray at the mosque and the sermons were not broadcast during the Muslim prayer times. Some members of the church committee went to the police station to complain as it was clear that the mosque had only been built to persecute the church. The police officer responded that they could not do anything and there was no law that restricted how far a mosque had to be built from a church even though churches were not able to be built unless they were a certain distance from the closest mosque and had a congregation of no less than 300 people.
Everywhere the applicant went there were microphones broadcasting Muslim prayers and sermons. There were [mosques] next to the applicant’s house. The mosques constantly broadcast curses about Christians and Christian women saying that they should be treated as slaves and that Muslims should not work with them.
The applicant also noted a number of incidents occurring in 2013 including, an attack on a church in Khosoos and the murder of seven people from the same family who lived opposite the church; an attack on the cathedral in Abaseya during the funeral procession of those killed in the Khosoos attack; and the burning of the Archangel Church in Imbaba. The applicant claimed that, as Copts in Egypt, they suffered persecution. Every day, they were threatened and called infidels. They faced terrorist attacks and simply going to church to pray was dangerous. The applicant claimed that he felt the persecution more greatly as he was very involved in his church and services.
Protection visa interview
The applicant was interviewed by an officer of the Department of Immigration [in] October 2014 and the Tribunal has listened to a recording of that interview. At the interview, the applicant submitted a news article, dated 28 September 2014, from Watani International, describing police brutality following an earlier clash between Coptic Christians and police in Upper Egypt.
The applicant provided evidence at interview that was broadly consistent with his written claims. The Tribunal is satisfied that an accurate account of the interview is set out in the delegate’s decision record.
Review application
At the time they applied for review, the applicants submitted to the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record. The delegate accepted that the applicant was a Coptic Christian, involved with his local church and provided assistance to poor Christians through his involvement with the church. The delegate was not satisfied, however, that the applicant was taken to the police station after reporting that rocks had been thrown at his church, was attacked by is Islamists in January 2014, or was targeted by Islamists because of the assistance he had provided to poor Christians. The delegate accepted that there had been widespread violence against Coptic Christians in 2013 but, since that time, the level of violence had decreased. Whilst incidents of violence against Coptic Christians had been recorded since August 2013, the risk of harm for Copts in Egypt, particularly in urbanised areas was low. The delegate found that in the applicant’s circumstances, there was not a real chance or risk of him facing serious harm or significant harm in the foreseeable future.
Prior to the Tribunal hearing, the applicant submitted a third statutory declaration, dated [in] May 2016, and a letter, dated [in] May 2016, from [Priest A], Parish Priest at [a] Church, [in Australia].
According to [Priest A]’s letter, the applicants attend his church on a regular basis. [Priest A] stated that he had spoken to [name], the Parish Priest at [the applicant’s] Church in [suburb] Giza [in] May 2016. [The other priest] had confirmed that the applicant was a prominent servant of the church, [duties deleted]. [Priest A], stated that the applicant had told him of the persecution and harm he suffered due to a personal vendetta against him held by Muslim extremists as a consequence of his involvement in saving [Christian] families from being converted to Islam. The letter states that it became known that the applicant was the reason behind the change of circumstances of these [families] and others in the area had warned the applicant that the extremists were asking about him and his whereabouts. The applicant was subsequently assaulted on Christmas Eve 2014 by the extremists. [Priest A] expressed the view that the applicant’s situation was not uncommon in Egypt. The applicant was personally harmed as he was the responsible servant who organised the change of circumstances for the [families] and a personal vendetta was held against him personally. [Priest A] expressed a strong personal belief that the applicant would be in great danger if he returned to Egypt as extremist Muslims do not let go of their personal vendettas. [Priest A] stated that there were examples of families being sought and killed by extremists even after relocating to a different area and after a period of time.
In his third statutory declaration, the applicant identified a number of factual errors arising in the delegate’s decision and addressed aspects of the delegate’s reasoning. The applicant claimed that he was attacked in January 2014 not as result of his charity work but because of a personal vendetta against him which arose as a result of the assistance he provided to [some] women to get away from their temptations and prevent them from becoming Muslims. The applicant stated that this vendetta would last for years and would not be forgotten.
Tribunal hearing
At the commencement of the Tribunal hearing, the applicant submitted to the Tribunal photographs showing a scar on [him] which she claimed was sustained the course of the Christmas Eve 2014 attack on him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his reasons for applying for a protection visa. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was involved in a ministry of service at his church which included visiting Christian families living in poor Muslim areas. One of these families was a young mother with [children], whose husband had died. After her husband’s death, the lady’s Muslim neighbours became very friendly and would take her things and ask her to convert to Islam. The applicant told the Tribunal that when he realised what was happening, he notified the church of his concern that the lady might convert. The church arranged a place for her to live which was close to the church. The lady’s mother-in-law hated her and she had no other relatives living close by. The applicant told the Tribunal that the lady was one of [a number of] families assigned to him to visit. The lady used to attend Friday masses at the applicant’s church but after her husband passed away became more committed and attended the Saturday meeting [event], of which the applicant was in charge. The applicant stated that these events occurred towards the end of 2012.

The applicant told the Tribunal of another case involving a family assigned to him to visit. This family included [a number of] children, amongst whom, were [certain children]. The father of the family was poor labourer whose work was casual and irregular. The [certain children] were tempted by their Muslim neighbours with offers to be taken to school in clean cars rather than have to take congested public transport. On the way to school, they would be tempted with kind words and gifts by bearded Muslim men in the local area. This caused the applicant to be concerned that the temptations might lure the [children] to convert to Islam. The applicant again notified the church about his concerns and the church arranged a car to pick them up from their home take them to school and back. This family was also part of the church’s congregation and on a list of the [church]. Servants of the church would take [food] to such families on religious occasions. The applicant intervened in this family’s case in around March 2013.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the consequences to him of his involvement in these two cases. The applicant told the Tribunal that Muslim extremists in the areas where the families resided became concerned and started investigating who had intervened in these cases. The extremists knew that the applicant had been visiting the families and looked for him for eight months until eventually they found him and assaulted him in January 2014.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why his involvement in these cases would have been of concern or offensive to the families’ neighbours. The Tribunal explained that the assistance the applicant had provided in these cases appeared not dissimilar to the other services he had been providing to families on behalf of his church over a period of time. The applicant responded the neighbours had been trying to convert the women and the applicant had thwarted their efforts. The women were prey in their hands and the applicant had snatched them away. The applicant told the Tribunal that a person who was able to convert a Christian to Islam would be paid an amount of money by Muslim groups.
The Tribunal noted that the families were already members of church’s congregation and receiving assistance from the church and visits from the applicant. The applicant’s claim was that his intervention in these cases was so upsetting to the families’ Muslim neighbours that they wanted to physically attack him and possibly kill him, yet it appeared that the applicant and his church had been providing similar kinds of assistance to these families for some time. The Tribunal explained it was having difficulty understanding why the particular acts of providing a new home and a car service to these families would have caused their neighbours to have a vendetta against the applicant. The applicant told the Tribunal that vengeance was a part of Islam in Egypt. There was no security or police and lots of Salafists and no-one could control them.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he thought it took his attackers eight months to find him if the reason they knew of his involvement in the cases was because he had been visiting the families for a period of time. The applicant responded that in the case of the widow, he never visited the neighbourhood again after she was moved to a new home. The applicant said he continued to visit the family with [number of] children. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, in that circumstance, it took eight months for the extremists to find the applicant and attack him. The applicant responded that he was asked the same question by the Department and his answer was that the Department should ask his attackers this question. The applicant put to the applicant that one possibility was that the January 2014 attack was random or simply motivated by the applicant being a Coptic Christian on his way to church on Christmas Eve. The applicant told the Tribunal that whilst he was being assaulted he heard his attackers say they would not leave him alone because the applicant had snatched an opportunity away from them in relation to the lady and the [children].
The Tribunal asked the applicant to describe in more detail the incident which took place in January 2014. The applicant stated that he was on his way home from church and saw a group of [people] running towards him. They pushed him to the ground and beat him. People passing by on the street gathered to see what was happening. One of the attackers drew a knife but was pushed away by the onlookers who told the applicant to escape. The applicant heard his attackers say they would not leave the applicant alone and no matter how long it took they would take their revenge upon him. The next day the same attackers were waiting at the end of the applicant street. The applicant said his street was a dead end and had no side streets, so there was only one way out. Some people told the applicant over the phone that there was a group waiting for him at the end of the street. The applicant did not leave his house all day. The applicant and his wife were very scared so left their home at dawn the next day.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew that the group waiting at the end of his street were his attackers from the previous day. The applicant responded that he thought it was the same group because of what they had said during the attack and he had no enemies on his street. The Tribunal asked applicant why the group waited at the end of his street instead of approaching his home. The applicant responded that this question should be asked of his attackers. The Tribunal explained that it was asking the applicant questions because it needed to make a decision about what would happen if the applicant were to return to Egypt. If the applicant’s attackers wanted revenge and knew where the applicant lived, it was unclear why they would wait at his the end of his street instead of approaching his home. The applicant said they would be unable to get to his house because he lived on the second floor of his building and there was a locked gate.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any difficulty travelling from his home to his daughter’s home the next day. The applicant stated that they left at dawn while it was still dark. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he decided to go to his [daughter]’s home. The applicant responded that it was because her home was [distance] km from his house. The second reason was that her husband was in [another country] and she was alone. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously mentioned that his daughter was experiencing some difficulties at the time. The applicant agreed that she had been having some troubles in her area and there had been an attempt to abduct her [child] on the way back from school. There were problems in every suburb at the time.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he remained at his daughter’s home from [date] January to [date] March 2014. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had continued any of his normal activities whilst living at his daughter’s home. The applicant responded that he was locked up in the house and was unable to get out at all. The applicant could not continue with his church service. Another of the applicant’s [children] who was living in [a certain suburb] came to live at [the daughter’s] place because it was closer to airport. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was unable to continue his usual activities at all during this period. Everything they needed was delivered to the house.
The Tribunal noted that by January 2014, the applicant already had a visa to travel to Australia but did not leave until March 2014. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the reasons for his delay in departing Egypt. The applicant stated that he was unable to leave Egypt without his daughter and [family member]. The applicant stated that his [family member] had been refused a visa. [In] January 2014, she was given a visa. They had to wait until March because they had to wait for money to book tickets to depart. The applicant told the Tribunal that he felt safe in Australia because he knew that his attackers would still want revenge.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he heard anything more from the extremists who had attacked him, during the period he was staying at his daughter’s home. The applicant told the Tribunal that when he came to Australia he heard from friends at his church that they had been asking when the applicant would be back. The Tribunal asked the applicant how his church friends came to know this information. The applicant responded that all they had said was that there was a group of people who had been asking about the applicant. The applicant’s friends did not know whether they were the same people who had attacked the applicant but they knew that these people were from the same area.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether any other members of his church were having problems with this same group of people. The applicant stated that the group were only after him because of his involvement in the two cases and the opportunities that he snatched from them.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had also described in his written evidence a range of other incidents where he had been harmed, harassed or insulted. The Tribunal noted that these incidents seemed to have been motivated by the applicant’s religion rather than the result of any personal vendetta against the applicant. The applicant agreed that he had described these incidents to indicate what life was like as a Coptic Christian in Egypt.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether these types of incidents occurred more frequently after 2011. The applicant stated that things were much worse after 2011. To a certain extent there was security prior to 2011. The police were really in control. After the Islamists came to power, the police refused to take complaints or reports from Coptic Christians.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the incident in which rocks were thrown at his church. The applicant stated that at about 11 PM he received a call from the priest who asked him to go to the church as there had been a report of rocks being thrown. The applicant went to the church and saw that windows had been broken and there were lots of rocks so he rang the police. [An officer] and [soldiers] attended and accused the applicant of inciting sectarian mutiny. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s evidence suggested that the police were initially responsive to the applicant’s call for help. The applicant agreed that they came to the scene but they then took no action. The applicant stated that he was taken to the police station. The guard who lived at the church called the priest and told him that the applicant had been taken to the police station. The police wrote a report requiring that the applicant not call the police or notify them of anything in the future. The applicant confirmed that he had not been forcibly taken to the police station but had been asked to accompany them and he felt compelled to go. The applicant confirmed that he was not harmed or mistreated at the police station.
The applicant described a number of incidents in which people had been harmed in Egypt for reasons of vengeance. The Tribunal noted that in at least one of the examples the applicant had given a son had been killed in revenge for a murder his father had committed. The matters the applicant had been involved in appeared far less serious. The applicant stated that he had taken away the opportunity for [people] to be converted to Islam.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his fears about returning to Egypt. The applicant told the Tribunal that he feared returning to Egypt as an elderly person. He still had nightmares about what had happened to him in Egypt. If he went back to Egypt he may be deprived of going to his church, whereas in Australia he enjoyed going to church and was treated with respect.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he felt he would be unable to go to church should he return to Egypt. The applicant told the Tribunal that he would be locked up at home in fear and terror. Those who had attacked him had vengeance in their heart and would not leave him alone. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was still concerned that the same group would wish to harm him again even though he had now been absent from Egypt for more than two years. The applicant responded that their vengeance would not be forgotten no matter how long or far the distance. The applicant told the Tribunal that as recently as a month ago, his friends from church had heard these people asking about the applicant.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he still owned property in Egypt. The building that he had lived in was owned by his mother-in-law who had passed away and his wife is now the landlord. The building is a duplex and the downstairs tenants still live in the building. The applicant stated that he had one [sibling] living in [a certain suburb] about [distance] km away from his home and another living in Upper Egypt. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his [siblings] were presently experiencing any problems in Egypt owing to their religion. The applicant told the Tribunal that it was hard for them to earn a living. The applicant said his [relative] was not given any jobs because he is Coptic.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information about the situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt set out on the DFAT Country Report and Thematic Report (see below). The Tribunal explained that there appeared to have been a change in the general security situation and the particular situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt since the applicant’s departure.
The Tribunal noted that there had been a general election in May 2014 and a new president had come to power. The Sisi government, which had replaced the Morsi government, had emphasized internal security and promised to improve law and order. This change had taken effect particularly in urban areas. Coptic Christians in Egypt were generally pleased with the restoration of law and order under President Sisi. President Sisi had visited the main Coptic church on Christmas Eve and called upon Egyptians to rise above religious differences. Although communal tensions and violence towards Copts had increased in recent decades, there was a particular deterioration in the situation after the January 2011 revolution which overthrew President Mubarak and the July 2013 military intervention which overthrew President Morsi. However, under the Sisi administration there had been a significant decrease in the number and scale of attacks on Copts. Most incidents of violence in recent years had taken place in Upper Egypt. Most Christians in urban areas were able to live, work and socialise with their Muslim neighbours without particular difficulties. The Tribunal explained that the information suggested that the situation had improved in recent years and that if the applicant were to return to his home in an urban part of Egypt, the applicant may be able to live without a real chance or risk of serious or significant harm.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had claimed that his situation was different to that of other Coptic Christians because of the particular vendetta against him. However, the Tribunal explained that the improvement in general law and order was also relevant to the question of whether there was a real chance or risk of the applicant being attacked by this group again.
The applicant responded that on the face of things the situation had improved. For example, Sisi had promised to build a church in memory of Christians who had been murdered but the church had not in fact been built because of the objections of Muslims living in the area. A Christian governor and principal had been appointed but were unable to take up their work because of the objections of Muslims. Five Christian children had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for defaming Islam after performing a drama about ISIS. These were just a few examples of the actual situation in Egypt. The applicant asked the Tribunal to take into account his age, his fears and the fact that his attackers had vengeance in their heart.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that another issue that it had to consider, particularly if it was satisfied that there was a vendetta against the applicant held by a group of extremists in his home area, was whether the applicant could safely and reasonably relocate to another part of Egypt. The applicant responded that this was impossible because he owned property in Giza and had no money to rent a home in another area. The vendetta would always be there no matter how far the applicant tried to go. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the situation in parts of Upper Egypt did not appear particularly safe for the applicant but asked the applicant whether he thought it might be safe in parts of Cairo or Alexandria. The Tribunal asked how those people who sought revenge against the applicant could find him if he were to go to those parts of the country. The applicant responded that those people, especially Salafists, had eyes and contacts everywhere. The Tribunal noted that DFAT had advised in relation to the Salafists that there was no specific campaign of terror directed towards Coptic Christians. The applicant responded that the enmity and aggression is still there. Previously, there was mutual respect between Christians and Muslims but that is no longer the case.
In response to the applicant’s claim that he had no money to live in another part of Egypt, the Tribunal asked the applicant whether his children may be able to provide him with financial support. The applicant responded that his children had their own families and commitments. The applicant told the Tribunal that he received a pension of [amount] Egyptian pounds but denied having any other source of income. The tenants in the lower duplex in his building were relatives who had also inherited their home so did not pay rent.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s wife had not formally expressed any protection claims and asked the applicant whether there was anything further the applicant wished the Tribunal to take into account in relation to her situation. The applicant responded that she also lives in terror. Her fears were the same as his.
Representative’s submissions
At the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing, the applicant’s representative made detailed oral submissions, primarily in relation to the country situation in Egypt. The representative’s oral submissions were based on written submissions, dated [in] May 2016, which she handed up to the Tribunal at the conclusion of the hearing. The representative’s written submissions additionally addressed aspects of the delegate’s reasoning, including the delegate’s unfavourable credibility findings.
In relation to the applicant’s particular position, the representative noted the applicant would be unable to practise his faith by serving his church in the manner in which he had in the past.
In relation to the issue of relocation, it was submitted that it would be easy for a person with contacts in the Civil Registry or police force to find another person in Egypt. The applicant would be required to register a residential address. The applicant could be located through his pension records. The applicant’s attackers were not from his area yet were able to locate the applicant’s street.
The representative noted that the applicant’s children were unable to financially support him either here or Egypt as they were each receiving Red Cross and Centrelink payments. The cost of rent would be double the amount of his pension.
It was further submitted that the Tribunal should take into account the applicant’s age, stating that he was unable to tolerate violence or fear.

The representative suggested that there may be an additional risk to the second applicant as a woman who does not wear a veil. The applicant agreed, stating that he had fear in his heart for his wife as a woman who walks in the street without a veil.
Additional country information
In addition to the country information set out in the written submissions before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has taken into consideration advice set out in the DFAT Country Information Report on Egypt, dated 24 November 2015 and the DFAT Thematic Report on Egyptian Copts of the same date. Relevantly, the Thematic Report states:
2.18 Communal tensions and violent incidents involving Copts steadily increased in recent decades, fuelled by growing Islamist sentiment; worsening economic conditions; and growing segregation along religious lines. The situation deteriorated after both the January 2011 Revolution, which overthrew President Mubarak, and the July 2013 military intervention, which overthrew President Morsi (see ‘Recent History’), due largely to the breakdown of law and order on both occasions. Under the Sisi administration, however, there has been a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks against Copts.
2.19 The majority of communal incidents in recent years have taken place in the Upper Egypt (southern) governates of Beni Suef, Fayoum, Aswan, Assiut, Minya, Luxor and Qena. Minya, which has a large Coptic population, high concentration of Islamist activists, high rate of poverty, and low rate of education, has been particularly notable as a location for communal tensions.
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.
…
4.1 In recent years, political and economic turmoil has led to a decrease in law and order and an increase in violent incidents, affecting all Egyptians. DFAT assesses that a weakening of law and order mechanisms in Egypt; a deterioration of economic conditions; and a long-term trend of increased Islamist sentiment (especially in poor and rural communities) have all contributed to an increase in the number of violent incidents involving Copts.
4.2 The first two conditions have been experienced generally throughout Egypt and are not Copt-specific. The consequences of increased Islamist sentiment for Copts were closely tied to wider political events vis-à-vis the leadership of Egypt and the place of Islamists and the military in Government.
4.3 Most communal incidents in Egypt take the form of vandalism and destruction of property. High-profile incidents in which people are killed or churches attacked are not a daily occurrence. There are 7-9 million Copts living in Egypt, and the vast majority do not face communal violence in their daily lives (see also ‘Day-to-Day Life’ and ‘Discrimination’, above).
4.4 DFAT assesses that Copts are generally at a low risk of personal harm from communal violence, especially in middle class urban centres. However, this risk is higher in rural, poorer urban or more conservative areas, particularly in Upper Egypt.
In relation to the particular situation of Coptic Christian women, the Thematic Report states:
3.42 Coptic women are generally able to work and travel unaccompanied in most areas of Egypt. Some Coptic women have reported being harassed or discriminated against after being identified as Copts (for instance, for not having their hair covered). Such incidents are more likely to occur in rural and poorer areas, particularly in Upper Egypt. However, DFAT notes the relatively high levels of societal discrimination against all women in Egypt (including within the Coptic community), and the role that on-going traditional values and ideas about gender roles plays in such discrimination, which is distinct from any specific anti-Copt prejudice.
In relation to the availability of state protection, the Thematic Report states:
5.1 The decrease in general law and order in Egypt in the years following the January 2011 revolution contributed to a general rise in crime and civil disorder throughout the country at that time. The police have actively restored their presence and authority since the July 2013 military intervention and the election of President Sisi.
5.2 Security forces have usually been successful in preventing communal friction from getting out of control, often by intervening to restore order or promising compensation for damage. In rural areas, authorities have encouraged the use of traditional justice mechanisms such as community reconciliation committees (see below) to resolve communal tensions, instead of a law enforcement approach.
5.3 Despite occasional incidents, a more substantial police presence in urban areas has enabled Copts to live there in greater security. The level of police presence in rural and poorer areas is generally less than in the cities, and as a consequence Copts are less safe in these areas.
5.4 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.
5.5 Response times and rates by security forces in relation to incidents of communal violence are not uniform and can be slow. However, this is an issue that impacts the wider community as well. Reported slow responses to complaints are at least in part due to the local police force being ill-equipped and under-resourced, particularly in rural areas.
Findings
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided generally truthful evidence regarding his personal circumstances and experiences in Egypt. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and second applicant are both Coptic Christians. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a very active member of his church and provided services to his church, including in the role of [duties deleted]. The Tribunal accepts that the applicants lived close to their church and that the applicant was often called upon by the church’s leaders to provide assistance as required.
The Tribunal also accepts that in the year or two leading up to the applicants’ departure from Egypt, the applicant experienced a number of incidents of harassment, discrimination and violence. Specifically, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was stopped in the street by a police officer and ordered to remove a cross hanging from the rear-view mirror of his car. The Tribunal accepts that a mechanic refused to fix the applicant’s car on the basis of his religion. The Tribunal also accepts that a small mosque was built in a lane behind the applicant’s church and broadcast sermons which were offensive to Christians, especially Christian women.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has provided generally truthful evidence regarding the police response to the rock throwing incident in May 2013. The applicant’s evidence indicates that the police responded to the request for assistance but then took no action. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant went to the police station at the officers’ request and was warned against disturbing the police or calling them in relation to similar matters in the future.
The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant was physically assaulted on Christmas Eve 2014. The Tribunal is not satisfied, however, that the assault was motivated by a vendetta or desire to seek revenge upon the applicant as a consequence of his intervention in the cases of [families] who were members of his church’s congregation.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was involved in these cases in the manner described by him at hearing. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was genuinely concerned that the women in question may be tempted to convert to Islam as a consequence of the offers of assistance provided to them by their Muslim neighbours. The evidence indicates, however, that the families were existing members of his church’s congregation and had been receiving visits and assistance from the applicant and their church for a period of time. The Tribunal is not satisfied that, in these circumstances, the provision of a home or transport to the women would be viewed by their neighbours as deliberate attempts to thwart their efforts to convert the women to Islam. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant’s actions in these circumstances would cause the women’s neighbours to hold a vendetta against the applicant such that they would wish to physically harm him or kill him, ether at the time in question or now, some three years later.
The timing of the attack also causes the Tribunal to question whether it was connected to the applicant’s involvement in these two cases, as claimed. Although the applicant has said that he stopped visiting the area where the widow had resided, because she had moved, the applicant told the Tribunal that he continued to visit the other family. In these circumstances, it is not apparent why the attackers would wait 8 months to confront the applicant or why it would take them 8 months to find him. It seems to the Tribunal that it would have been a relatively simple matter to find the applicant, either during one of his visits to the family, or in the vicinity of his church, where he was a frequent visitor.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence that he heard his attackers say that they would not leave him alone because he had snatched an opportunity away from them in relation to the widow and the [children]. In contrast to the applicant’s other evidence, this claim was less convincing. Later in the hearing, the applicant described what his attackers had said differently, saying that he heard them say they would not leave him alone and no matter how long it took they would take their revenge upon him. The different evidence as to what the attackers said causes the Tribunal to be not satisfied as to the truthfulness of this element of the applicant’s claims.
The Tribunal also has concerns in respect of the applicant’s claim that his attackers had been asking about the applicant at his church. The oral evidence suggested only that people had been asking when he would be back. This evidence does not satisfy the Tribunal that the persons making these enquiries were the applicant’s attackers, even if they were from the same neighbourhoods as the families the applicant had helped, or that they wished to do any harm to the applicant.
Similarly, the applicant’s evidence as to why he thought the group of people waiting at the end of his street the day after the attack were his assailants or wished to harm him was unconvincing. The evidence that “some people” had told the applicant that a group was waiting for him was somewhat vague. As put to the applicant at hearing, it also seems unusual that this group would wait at the end of the street rather than approach the applicant at his home, had they genuinely wished to harm him. The applicant was unable to identify any particular feature of the group that caused him to believe they wished to harm him or were his assailants, apart from what he asserted had been said during the attack and because he had no other enemies.
The Tribunal has considered the corroborative evidence from [Priest A]. However, as [Priest A]’s evidence is based on what the applicant had told him, rather than first-hand knowledge or experience, it does not overcome the concerns outlined above.
The Tribunal is prepared to accept that violent attacks motivated by vendettas or vengeance occur from time to time in Egypt. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept that the applicant may genuinely believe that persons in Egypt wish to seek revenge upon him for thwarting their efforts to convert [members] of his church to Islam. The Tribunal accepts that this belief, together with general conditions, and the particular situation for Copts, in Egypt at the time, may have contributed to the applicants’ decision to leave their home and stay with their daughter before making arrangements to depart for Australia. For the reasons given above, however, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is actually any person or group in Egypt holding a vendetta against the applicant or wishing to seek revenge upon him as a consequence of the assistance he provided to the [families] described in his evidence.
Having made these findings, the Tribunal has considered the situation for the applicants should they return to Egypt now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal accepts that, owing to the applicants’ recent experiences in Egypt and their age, the applicants may be unwilling and genuinely fearful about returning to Egypt. The Tribunal is not satisfied, however, that there is an objective basis to their fears and is not satisfied that there is a real chance or risk of the applicants suffering serious or significant harm in Egypt now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
As discussed with the applicant at hearing, the Tribunal accepts on the country information before it that in the aftermath of the January 2011 revolution and July 2013 military intervention there was a general rise in crime and civil disorder in Egypt and that sectarian violence including violent attacks against Coptic Christians increased. Although the Tribunal accepts that there may have been an objective basis for the applicants’ fears at the time of their departure from Egypt, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this remains the case.
Under the Sisi administration there has been a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks against Copts. The information before the Tribunal suggests that communal and sectarian incidents have recently taken place in parts of Upper Egypt and are more common in poor rural areas. However, the applicants own property, still have relatives and previously resided in a comparatively affluent urban area in Giza. The Tribunal is satisfied that this is where the applicants would return if forced to go back to Egypt. The advice from DFAT is that most Egyptians living in urban areas, work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity. There are 7- 9 million Copts living in Egypt and the vast majority do not face communal violence in their daily lives. The Tribunal regards the DFAT advice that Copts are generally at low risk of personal harm from communal violence, especially in middle-class urban areas, as credible.
In relation to the second applicant, the DFAT advice suggests that some Coptic women have reported being harassed or discriminated against for instance for having their hair uncovered. Again, however, the advice is that such incidents are more likely to occur in rural and poor areas, particularly in Upper Egypt.
The information before the Tribunal indicates that the police have actively restored their presence and authority since the July 2013 military intervention and the election of President Sisi. Despite occasional incidents, a substantial police presence in urban areas has enabled Copts to live there in greater security. DFAT has assessed 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 those areas.
In light of this country information, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either of the applicants face a real chance or risk of serious or significant harm for any reason connected with their religion or religious practice should they return to their home in Egypt now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants would be unable or unwilling to practice their religion or serve their church in a manner consistent with their previous practice and service as a consequence of a well-founded fear of serious or significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or risk that the applicant would be harmed as a consequence of any vendetta or personal grudge.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either 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.
Rachel Homan
Member

[2016] AATA 4372

26 August 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction