1502451 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4284

1502451 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4284 (10 August 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1502451

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Antoinette Younes

DATE:10 August 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 August 2016 at 3:06pm

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 [in] February 2015 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants who claim to be citizens of Egypt and [Country 1], applied for the visas [in] May 2013 and they were refused [in] January 2015. The applicants attended a hearing held on 6 July 2016.

   RELEVANT LAW

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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’).

6. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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 relevant country information assessments 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 & EVIDENCE

7. In the application for a protection visa, the first-named applicant (applicant) claimed that:

   a.He came to Australia [in] July 2007 to complete his education. In Egypt, he attended the only [Denomination 1] high school which was not accredited by the government because it was a Christian school. The school only had [number] students and it was mostly funded by the [Denomination 1] in Egypt. He could not go to college or university because the high school where he went was not approved by the Egyptian authorities.

   b.He came to Australia to flee from discrimination; he was abused and called infidel because he did not believe in their religion. As a child, he was chased by Muslim kids who threw stones. At government schools, he was forced to memorise verses of the Qaran and got spanked on the hand or legs with a cane. He could not practise his faith freely.  He also came to Australia because his older brother came earlier and told him that there was freedom of religion and speech in Australia.

   c.He fears returning to Egypt. He fears death by being bombed when going to church. He fears being unable to practise his religion freely, being kidnapped, persecuted, and imprisoned. He fears sexual harassment on his wife because “Muslims believe that women are of lower level than men.”  He does not want his wife to live in fear. He fears the civil war in Egypt and fears that Egypt will become like Syria. Egyptians do not want the brotherhood leadership

   d.He fears Muslims especially the extremists, the Muslim Brotherhood who have organised terrorist attacks. Muslims attack and burn Christian houses and shops. Recently in a town which is only a [short distance] from his school, Muslims killed four Christians. In the town next to where he lived, Christians were bombed as they were coming out of the church. He also worries about his parents who have been granted [Country 2] visas and will go to [Country 2] to reunite with his [sibling].

   e.He fears that he would be harmed because he is a Christian of the [Denomination 1] Church faith. [Due to some religious practices,] “Muslims hate Jewish” people, and they would easily mistake them for being Jewish. They would not allow him to practise his preaching to other people and share the Bible. There are few members of the [Denomination 1] Church in Egypt and it is very hard to become an [Denomination 1 member] in Egypt.

   f.The authorities would not protect him from the harm he fears. The authorities now do not have the same power as they did under the Mubarak regime. They do not implement any human rights in Egypt and they practise torture and force people to confess. He was once taken to the police station for riding his motorcycle without a license. He was not allowed to call his family.  He was interrogated and verbally abused.

8. In support of the visa application, the applicant provided a statutory declaration, dated [in] May 2013 in which he essentially reiterated the claims he made in the application for a protection visa. He also stated that:

   a.He was born [a Denomination 1] and all members of his family are [Denomination 1].  He went through Bible studies and was baptised in 2002. He “became [Denomination 1]” because the Church teaches the truth from the Holy Bible.

   b.He met his wife in December 2010 at [a Denomination 1] camp in Victoria. He proposed to her a year later and married [in] December 2012.

   c.Lately his mother has been telling him about the kidnappings of people and the ransoms paid. She has told him about the lack of safety in Egypt since Mubarak’s departure. Last year, the new President announced sweeping powers which clearly indicates that the Muslim brotherhood have other intentions than developing Egypt. Implementing Sharia law would create a civil war between the Muslims and the Christians which would lead to the Christians being wiped out. Muslims have been able to attack main cathedrals in Cairo and nothing will stop them from attacking small churches. Even the police were beaten up. All his friends who have recently come from Egypt have told him about the worsening situation in Egypt.

   d.He called the Egyptian Consulate to try to renew his passport but they told him that he had to return to Egypt to renew it because he would need to finalise his army situation. Without a passport, he cannot go anywhere nor do anything. He has been living in Australia for six years and all his life is here now. He has finished the certificate III in [subject 1] and he has been working as [an occupation 1] since January 2012. He enjoys the peace and the freedom in Australia.

9. The applicant provided copies of the following documents:

   a.letter from the pastor at [a specified] [Denomination 1] Church, dated [in] May 2013 referring to the applicant being an active regular member of the church;

   b.letter from the pastor of [Denomination 1] Church, Cairo, dated [in] May 2013 referring to the applicant’s baptism over 10 years earlier and being voted as a member of the [named] [Denomination 1] church;

   c.letter from [his employer] dated [in] May 2013 referring to the applicant’s employment with the company since [January] 2012;

   d.marriage certificate of the applicant dated [in] December 2012;

   e.birth certificates of the applicant and his wife, police clearances;

   f.generic articles relating to incidents of unrest in Egypt, ill-treatment of Coptic Christians, and the burning of [a Denomination 1] church in [Town 1];

   g.letter from the Ministry of defence, Department of Conscription, referring to a decision on [a date in] 2007 relating to the applicant in relation to the postponement of conscription;

   h.letter from [a named Denomination 1 school] dated [in] November 2013 relating to the applicant’s graduation from the [school] and indicating that the school is not accredited by the Egyptian government;

   i.profession of faith certificate dated [in] May 2013 in relation to the applicant,

10. To the Tribunal, the applicant provided generic reports relating to the [Denomination 1] Church, a letter from the principal of the [named Denomination 1 school] dated [in] February 2015 confirming that the school is not accredited by the Egyptian Ministry of education, receipt for a [different visa] application for [a relative], letter dated [in] September 2015 from [a community group] referring to the applicant’s charitable work, letter from [Pastor A] dated [in] July 2016 referring to the applicants’ Christian faith, and DFAT Smart Traveller advice (X2).

11. In an undated statement to the Tribunal, the applicant claimed that:

    a.For many years, [his named Denomination 1 school] attempted to obtain accreditation from the Egyptian authorities but this was refused with no “clear reasons…. They didn’t accept us because we are [Denomination 1] Christians”. This amounts to discrimination and deprivation of a way of life.

    b.In government schools, he suffered bullying and abuse for being a Christian.  The government is against the church and the new constitution written sometime in November 2013 states that they are not Christians, as shown in the attached newspaper. 

    c.In May 2013 almost 2 years after he applied for protection, his fear was greatest because the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt and their aim was to turn Egypt into an Islamic state.  He feared civil war between Christians and Muslims. He feared that Christians would have to follow Islam – “Islamic law is full of hate towards non-Muslims”.  Egypt is unstable and hence he sought protection.

    d.As a [Denomination 1] practitioner, he is not allowed to share the Bible with others who are not [Denomination 1]. If he were to do so in Egypt, he would be imprisoned, abused or killed. In Australia he shares the Bible with his workmates and those who come to visit the church. He usually gets asked to translate. He has been asked to be one of the coordinators at the [specified Denomination 1 church].

    e.[Denomination 1 members] experience verbal abuse and harassment from Muslims. Some refer to them as Jewish. [Denomination 1 members]  are not only rejected by Muslims but for long by the three main churches in Egypt’s, namely Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical as shown in the attached document.

    f.The case officer had accepted that Christians face discrimination and mistreatment but the risk of persecution depended on individual circumstances, residents and activities, but this is untrue. Unless one is rich and has protection, they could be subjected to ill-treatment. The case officer agreed that women face harassment; according to CNN, 99% of women face some sort of sexual harassment making Egypt’s some of the highest in the world. Hence he fears taking his wife to Egypt.

    g.The case officer mentioned that his wife is [Country 1 nationality] and she could return to [Country 1] but he does not want to separate from his wife. In relation to the passport renewal, paying a fine is the solution to the problem but this cannot be done from Australia. It is a court case in Egypt. He held a [temporary] visa and why would he bother applying for a protection visa unless he feared harm. It is against the [Denomination 1] faith to join the army and engage in combat. If he were to join the army, he would not be able to practise his faith. The army does not take time off except for Friday prayers.

    h.He has lived safely in Australia for eight years with his [number] brothers and wife who is working in [industry]. He has been a good resident involved in support of community programs organised by the church and Australia has become his home.

    FINDINGS & REASONS

    Country of nationality and membership of the family unit

12. On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is a national of Egypt and that the second named applicant is a national of [Country 1]. 

13. In relation to the applicant, the Tribunal finds that his claims should be assessed against Egypt for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa). Regarding the second named applicant, the Tribunal finds that her claims should be assessed against [Country 1] for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa).

14. On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal is satisfied that the second named applicant is a member of the applicant’s family unit.

    Has the applicant suffered any harm on the basis of his religion and religious activities in Egypt?

15. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicants are of the [Denomination 1] faith. 

16. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about his religious practice in Egypt. He gave evidence that he initially attended a government school but later went to the [named Denomination 1] School which was not registered with the Egyptian authorities. He said similar to the Jewish faith, he [conducted various religious practices]. He said he shared the Bible with Muslims in Egypt. The Tribunal asked him how and when he shared the Bible with Muslims and he stated that he secretly went with [specified foreign] missionaries. He also discussed the Bible during school. The Tribunal noted that the claim in relation to secretly going with [specified foreign] missionaries does not appear to have been made in the application for a protection visa to which the applicant responded that he was overwhelmed at the Departmental interview. The Tribunal indicated that it was not referring to the interview but to the application for a protection visa and he stated that he was providing further details to the Tribunal. The Tribunal expressed concerns that such a claim was not made in the application and the applicant responded that he had nothing to say. The Tribunal is of the view that the failure to mention what is a significant claim in the application for a protection visa raises doubts about the claim and the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was involved in any other religious activities and he confirmed that he was not.

17. The applicant has provided a letter from the pastor of [Denomination 1] Church, Cairo, dated [in] May 2013 referring to his baptism and being voted as a member of the [named] [Denomination 1] church. 

18. On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant attended a high school of the [Denomination 1] faith and that whilst a student, he participated in religious activities at the school. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been baptised and that he was a member of the [named] [Denomination 1] church.  In relation to his claim in the course of the hearing that he secretly went with [specified foreign] missionaries, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the applicant’s explanations about the failure to have mentioned this claim in the application for a protection visa. Given those concerns, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was involved in any such activities.

19. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s claim that he was once taken to the police station and was abused. He stated that that he was interrogated as a Christian and was told “you’re breaking the law…… You’re a Christian”. The Tribunal noted that the religious comments do not appear to have been claimed in the application for a protection visa raising concerns for the Tribunal and the applicant did not respond. Although the Tribunal accepts as plausible that on one occasion, the applicant was taken to the police station for riding his motorcycle without a license, the Tribunal does not accept that he was verbally abused, or interrogated, or that anyone made comments relating to his Christianity. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did not suffer any serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act on the basis of this incident, or any other basis.

20. Tribunal asked the applicant about his claim that he had been discriminated against, abused and called an infidel. He stated that when he was a child, Muslim kids attacked them and called them infidels. Whilst the Tribunal accepts as plausible that this occurred, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant did not suffer significant or serious harm on this basis.

21. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s faith and activities as accepted by the Tribunal did not give the applicant a significant profile, or a leadership profile, or a religious profile, or any actual or imputed adverse profile that meant that he was or would be of any adverse interest to any group in Egypt.

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant and he confirmed that he did not suffer any other harm in Egypt, supporting the Tribunal’s findings that he did not have an adverse profile or one of any interest to any group.

    The applicant’s religious activities in Australia

23. The applicant gave evidence that he attended [a specified] [Denomination 1] Church and coordinated [religious meetings]. In Queensland, he attends church and is involved in charity work such as helping the homeless of all faiths, distributing pamphlets to homes and sharing his faith. The Tribunal asked him if he was involved in any other religious activities in Australia and he stated that he has been assisting as a volunteer in renovating the church. The applicant provided a letter from the pastor at [the specified] [Denomination 1] Church, dated [in] May 2013 referring to the applicant being an active regular member of the church.

24. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been involved in Christian -related activities in Australia, specifically that he attends church, that he is involved in charity work, that he has distributed pamphlets, that he is perceived to be an active regular member of the church. The Tribunal is satisfied that those activities do not give the applicant an adverse profile, or that if he were to return to Egypt and engage in those activities, there is a real chance or a real risk that he would suffer serious or significant harm on the basis of those activities.

25. The Tribunal has given regard to the letter dated [in] July 2016 from [Pastor A] who amongst other things, noted that the [Denomination 1] faith is evangelical in nature and as such proselytising is a key part. Although this is not specifically claimed by the applicant, the Tribunal has carefully considered the activities of distributing pamphlets and even if the applicant were to engage in those activities on his return to Egypt, the Tribunal is not satisfied that those activities without more mean that the applicant would be perceived as engaging in proselytising conduct or conduct that could attract adverse attention. In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance of real risk that the applicant would be perceived as proselytising and consequently suffer harm on the basis of that conduct, or any other activities in Australia.

    Delay in lodging the application for a protection visa

1. The applicant gave evidence that he came to Australia in 2007 as the holder of a student visa to undertake studies in [subject 2]. He studied for one year but later decided to discontinue because he felt apprehensive about [some aspects of the content]. He later undertook a course as [an occupation 1] and he applied for a [temporary] visa which was refused because of skills assessment. On review by the MRT, the matter was remitted and he was granted a visa, valid for 18 months.

2. The applicant gave evidence that his passport expired and he decided to apply for a protection visa because he could not “apply for any other visa”. He stated that he contacted the Egyptian consulate who advised him that he would be able to renew his Egyptian passport but only for a validity period of six months. He decided not to renew his passport. When queried by the Tribunal, he confirmed that it was his choice not to apply for a renewal of his passport.

3. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the almost six year delay in lodging the application for a protection visa and suggested that the delay could raise doubts about his claims. The applicant stated that in 2007 when he came to Australia, there was no chaos in Egypt and that the problems started in 2011 when he felt he would eventually need a permanent visa, like his brother. He said he was also uncertain about his prospects of success in obtaining the protection visa. The Tribunal is satisfied that the significant delay in the applicant’s lodgement of the application for a protection visa raises doubts about his claims of harm and fear of returning to Egypt

   Compulsory military service

4. The Tribunal discussed the applicant’s claim relating to him not completing military service and indicated that generally military service relates to a law of general application. The Tribunal noted that in its 2015 report, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)[1] reported that military service is usually for two years and is compulsory for all Egyptian males aged from 18 and that mechanisms for deferrals/exemptions including family circumstances, education purposes, or excess number of conscripts -  “…. exemption is renewed every three years for reassessment until the subject is 30 years of age, at which time he receives a permanent exemption …”[2].   The Tribunal noted that according to DFAT, if an individual is not able to renew his military service exemption and does not complete military service, “…. he is liable to pay a fine of up to EGP 1000 (AUD 170) and/or face a prison sentence of a minimum of one year.  DFAT understands that conscientious objection to military service is not a common phenomenon in Egypt, and we are not aware of any provision that a conscientious objector could use to avoid military service”[3]

   [1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2015, DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015

   [2] Ibid, at page 20, paras 3.94-3.96

   [3] Ibid, at para 3.96

5. The applicant agreed with the Tribunal that there are mechanisms for seeking exemptions and he stated that when he applied for a protection visa, this was relevant to his claims but he is no longer sure. He stated that he still feels he would need to go through a legal process to resolve the military service issue. He confirmed however that he is no longer concerned about this issue.

6. Given the applicant’s concession and on the basis of country information, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance or a real risk of the applicant suffering significant or serious harm on the basis of him not completing compulsory military service in Egypt. Moreover, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his religion, or religious activities, or anything about him would mean that he would be harmed as contemplated by the Convention or under complementary protection on this basis.

   Claims relating to the second named applicant

7. The Tribunal has found that the second named applicant is a national of [Country 1] and that her claims should be assessed against [Country 1] for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa). The second named applicant has not made any claims against [Country 1]. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance or a real risk of serious or significant harm occurring to the second named applicant if she were to return to [Country 1]. The Tribunal is satisfied that the second named applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to [Country 1], her country of nationality.

8. The second named applicant gave evidence that she fears going to Egypt. She noted that the Muslim culture does not “respect other religions”. She stated that she fears harm that something would happen to her if they were to go to Egypt. The Tribunal asked the second named applicant if the applicant, as a result of the marriage, would be able to obtain residency in [Country 1] and she confirmed that he would be able to enter and reside in [Country 1], on the basis of their marriage.

9. The applicant’s brother, [named], gave evidence that his wife had told him that women in Egypt are sexually harassed and that there are numerous sexual assaults. He stated that his sister-in-law, the second named applicant, is of [Country 1] ethnicity which would be evident in Egypt and she would be harmed on this basis.

10. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) 24 November 2015 Country Report[4] reported:

    3.81 Sexual harassment is a frequent occurrence for women across the socio-economic spectrum. A May 2013 study by UN Women found that 99.3 per cent of women had experienced some form of sexual harassment, while 91.5 per cent reported experiencing unwanted physical contact. The study reported that harassment and assault occurred regardless of a woman’s physical appearance, conduct, or manner of redress. Sexual harassment was found to be particularly prevalent during mass street celebrations (such as religious feasts or other large social events) or political demonstrations. In June 2014, sexual harassment was criminalised for the first time. Decree 50 of 2014, which amended Articles 306(bis)(a) and 306(bis(b) of the Egyptian Penal Code, provided for sentences of up to five years’ imprisonment for those found guilty of any sexual or pornographic suggestion through words, signs or acts. On 19 April 2015, a man received a five year prison sentence for sexually harassing a woman on public transport in Cairo. However, such convictions remain the exception rather than the norm.

    3.82 The aforementioned UN Women study found that most women who were s sexually assaulted would not report the crime to police (only 19 per cent would do so) or tell their families. In addition, Egyptian doctors are generally not adequately trained to keep evidence of sexual assault and conservative social norms may sometimes influence the way medical practitioners treat victims of sexual crime.

    3.83 Rape is punishable by death in Egypt under Article 267 of the Egyptian Penal Code. Approximately 20,000 cases of rape are reported each year, though the actual number is credibly estimated to be much higher. Authorities will rarely make serious attempts to prosecute those responsible for sexual crimes. Weak legal definitions for rape and sexual assault, a lack of law-enforcement expertise and ill-equipped hospitals have meant the issue has been treated as a social nuisance….

    [4] Ibid

11. Whilst the claims in relation to the second named applicant are speculative in nature, the Tribunal acknowledges that there is information that women can be ill-treated in Egypt. The Tribunal accepts that the second named applicant is of [Country 1] ethnicity and she does not speak Arabic which means it would be evident that she is not Egyptian. The Tribunal has accepted that she is of the [Denomination 1] faith but the Tribunal is not satisfied that her faith, ethnicity, lack of Arabic skills, or any other factor means that there is a real chance or of real risk that she would suffer serious and/or significant harm for any reason as contemplated by the Act. There are many women in Egypt and it would be unreasonable to suggest that all women have or could suffer serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the second named applicant does not have a profile that could mean she would be harmed as contemplated.

    Assessment relating to future harm

12. The [Denomination 1] Church was recognised as an official sect of Christianity in Egypt in [a time period] and this recognition gives the church legal status in Egypt meaning that it can build churches upon approval from the authorities and members of the church can register ”Christian” on their Egyptian ID cards. Members of the church are allowed to practise their faith openly. According to a report by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), relations between Muslims and [Denomination 1] in Egypt are similar to those between Muslims and Christians in general. While [Denomination 1 members] experienced verbal harassment from Muslims in some areas, elsewhere, [Denomination 1] pastors have managed to establish good relations with their local Imams and Muslim communities. The report adds that some Muslims believe [Denomination 1] to be Jews because [of certain religious practices].[5]  [In] 2013, a [Denomination 1] church in [Town 1] was attacked by a mob during rioting and reports noted that the attack was the work of a “[small group]”.[6] 

    [5] [Deleted.].

    [6] [Deleted.]

13. The applicant has claimed that he fears the Muslim Brotherhood and death as a result of a bomb when going to church. Although the Tribunal cannot exclude the possibility of a bomb, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk of such harm occurring to the applicant on his return to Egypt. For the stated reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has an adverse profile which would mean that there is a real chance or real risk of harm by the Muslim Brotherhood or any other group, or that he is of any adverse interest to any such group.

14. The applicant has provided reports indicating that there have been incidents of harm and unrest in Egypt including burning of churches. DFAT 24 November 2015 Country Report[7] reported that following the January 2011 revolution, and particularly during the Morsi administration, there have been religious difficulties but that Christians and Muslims “from all walks of life live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, particularly in the urban centres” [8]

    [7] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2015, DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 24 November 2015

    D2ember 2015

15. The Tribunal acknowledges that Christians in Egypt can be harmed. The Tribunal accepts that as a Christian, the applicant may experience some degree of discrimination and harassment in Egypt. However, on balance the Tribunal is not satisfied that the level of discrimination is widespread or that it means that he would be prevented from practising his faith or that it would amount to serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act.  The applicant is claiming that being of the [Denomination 1] faith provides a significant religious profile because of, amongst other things, the faith is associated with Judaism.

16. The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant has suffered any harm as a result of his faith and whilst the past is not determinative of future harm, the past is nevertheless a reasonable guide. The Tribunal does not accept that being a Christian and specifically a [Denomination 1] without more means that there is a real chance or a real risk that a Christian applicant would suffer serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act. 

17. The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant is a Christian but the Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant has suffered serious or significant harm on the basis of his religion, or any other basis.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a significant profile or indeed any profile that would mean he faced or could face harm on that basis, or that his Christian-related activities as accepted by the Tribunal mean that he was or could be imputed or perceived to be proselytising, or that he would be perceived or mistaken for being Jewish, or that he would be imputed with any adverse religious beliefs. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is far-fetched and remote that the applicant’s activities in Australia would become known to the Egyptian authorities but even if so, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his activities in Australia would give ham an adverse profile or that he would be perceived as being proselytising, or being anti-Islam, or being anti-authorities. 

18. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant were to return to Egypt, he would engage in activities actual or perceived to be proselytising or anti-authorities, or anti-Islam. The applicant’s profile as accepted by the Tribunal supports the finding that the applicant’s involvement in Christian-related activities both in Egypt and in Australia are altruistic in nature and do not give rise to an actual or perceived profile of any adverse interest to any group in Egypt. On balance, the evidence including DFAT’s report mean that the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant were to return to Egypt, there is a real chance or a real risk that he would suffer serious or significant harm.

19. The applicant has indicated that he does not wish to separate from his wife and the Tribunal is not suggesting that he needs to do so. As noted earlier, the second named applicant is a national of [Country 1] and she confirmed that the applicant would be able to live in [Country 1] with her, although both applicants indicated their wish to remain in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that in the applicant’s circumstances, any separation from his wife due to removal from Australia would not amount to serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Act.

20. Therefore, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants do not now or in the reasonably foreseeable future have a well-founded fear of persecution arising essentially and significantly for one or more of the five Convention reasons if she returns to Egypt for any other reason. 

21. In essence, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, including the applicants individual circumstances either singularly or cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s face a real chance of persecution, or that there is a real chance that they would suffer serious harm for any other claimed reason, either singularly or cumulatively. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Egypt or [Country 1] now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.  Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants are refugees under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

22. The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicants are eligible for complementary protection. In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicants will suffer significant harm. In essence and in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal finds that there are no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that the applicants would suffer significant harm in the form of, arbitrary deprivation of life, or the death penalty being carried out, or torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment. Therefore they do not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(aa). 

23. 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

24. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

    Antoinette Younes
    Senior Member