1502597 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4238

1502597 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4238 (29 July 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1502597

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Antoinette Younes

DATE:29 July 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 29 July 2016 at 12:29pm

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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

2. The applicants who claim to be citizens of Egypt, applied for the visas [in] October 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] February 2015.

3. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 15 June 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

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

   RELEVANT LAW

5. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

6. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. 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’).

8. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. In the application for a protection visa, the first named applicant (applicant) made the following claims:

   a.She has been actively serving the church for all her adult life. She has been involved with the poor, distribution of charity, work with the disabled, care and guidance of teenage girls in orphanages. Her husband also took part in similar services. As a result of her Christian services, she was harassed and threatened by mail and over the telephone. She was followed in the streets by men on foot and on motorbikes.

   b.They owned a [store] which provided goods to the church. The shop was vandalised with anti-Christian graffiti and was robbed on many occasions. The owner of the shop intimidated and threatened to remove them from the building because of their Christianity and Christian icons displayed in their shop.

   c.In about mid October 2011, the general Islamic community became increasingly intolerant of Christians. She was persecuted at work by senior staff and in the streets. During the last 12 months, she was persecuted by sheiks, organised Islamic groups and the authorities. She was persecuted from March 2014 and very seriously in July and August.

   d.At the end of 2013, she started to visit the home of an elderly poor woman, [Ms A] who had her [relative], [Ms B] living with her. [Ms A]’s neighbour, [Ms C] was partially disabled and was very poor. She had a son, [Mr D] and a daughter, [Ms E] both of whom were unemployed and un-educated. The family relied financially on [Mr D] who was able to assist through illegal means.

   e.[Ms E] was a very close friend of [Ms B]. When the applicant first met the family, [Ms C] discussed with her problems and the applicant began to provide them with financial assistance. At this time [Mr D] started to associate with organised Islamist groups and he started to force his mother and sister to wear the Niqab, pray and not to talk to Christians. With the applicant’s assistance, [Ms C] began to feel empowered and started to refuse to obey her son and as a result, [Mr D] blamed the applicant and accused her of trying to convert his mother to Christianity. His sister started to refuse to abide by his commands. Eventually his mother also refused to listen to him and commented that she would rather be a Christian than follow orders in Islam. This resulted in the applicant’s confrontation with two sheiks, [Mr D] and two other men who appeared to have substantial influence on [Mr D].

   f.[Mr D] managed to win his sister and convince her to lure [Ms B] to Islam through false romance and marriage. The applicant tried hard to let her see what was happening but she would not listen. The applicant was harassed and threatened with death if she tried to stop [Ms B]. 

   g.During that time, [Ms A] was pushed down the stairs by [Mr D]’s friends and she required extended hospitalisation. She suffered restricted mobility. There was no witness to [Ms A] being pushed intentionally but the applicant tried to have the matter investigated. Through her involvement with [Ms A] and [Ms B], she received many threats, and was interrogated. One day, [Mr D] and his friends aggressively entered her home, threatened to kill her and destroyed all religious items in her home.

   h.[Ms B] started the process of conversion to Islam and she married.  The applicant stopped her service except for occasionally visiting [Ms A] who was now living with her [sibling] close by. The applicant used to visit [Ms C] secretly or send her food.

   i.In July, she received a call from [Ms B] during which she was unable to say very much but she asked the applicant to meet her. When [Ms B] arrived she was wearing the Nigab and she wanted to leave her husband to return to the church. The applicant was very distressed and scared to help. The applicant’s priest was concerned and instructed her to keep [Ms B] away from the church. The priest helped the applicant by making confidential contact about where [Ms B] could go and eventually with the help of a work [colleague] and the priest, [Ms B] was taken to a [location]. [Mr D] and his group suspected the applicant’s involvement with [Ms B] from pressure they put on [Ms A], and information they managed to get from [Ms A]’s brother.

   j.She was persecuted and harmed in Egypt and had to leave in a hurry.  She fears that if she were to return to Egypt, she would be raped or killed at the hands of Islamists groups, [Mr D], thugs and the authorities. This will happen to her because of her Christian activities and assistance to [Ms B] to return to Christianity. The authorities are Islamic and would not be able to control extremist groups.

10. In support of the visa application, the applicant provided an undated letter from [name] referring to the applicant being an active member of [a] Church and that she helps in outreach activities. She also provided a Psychological Evaluation report dated [November] 2014 by [a] clinical psychologist who indicated that the applicant self-referred for the “management and treatment of her psychological difficulties and emotional problems following being a victim of persecution in her home country in Egypt and due to the lack of stability she is experiencing”. [The clinical psychologist] diagnosed the applicant as having “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood”, as being fragile, unemployed, homeless and financially disadvantaged.

11. The applicant was interviewed by the Department in relation to her protection claims [in] February 2015 and in the decision record provided by the applicant in support of the application for review, there is a summary of the applicant’s responses. The Tribunal notes that the applicant and her husband had travelled to Australia previously, between [August] 2008 to [September] 2008, and from [April] 2010 to [July] 2010. In essence, the delegate found the applicant’s claims to be vague and unsubstantiated. The delay in lodging the application for a protection visa was also taken into consideration by the delegate in assessing the applicant’s claims.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

    Country of nationality and assessment on membership of the family unit

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

13. On the basis of the available information, the Tribunal finds that the applicants are nationals of Egypt.  The Tribunal finds that the 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).

    The applicant’s mental health

14. As noted earlier, [the clinical psychologist] diagnosed the applicant as having “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood”.

15. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the psychologist’s report. She stated that she saw the psychologist in November 2014 because she was tired and was unable to sleep. She saw him on four occasions and no longer sees him. She stated that she feels like a new person and she is improving. The Tribunal indicated that it would consider further the report of the psychologist. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the claims that she was homeless and financially disadvantaged and she stated that that was so at that time but now she is in receipt of centerlink benefits and receives assistance from the church. She confirmed that they still own a home in Egypt but her son does not go there because he has been threatened. She stated that her husband has received his retirement pension which he would receive in case of his return to Egypt.

16. On her own evidence, the applicant is feeling like a new person and she is improving. On the basis of the available information, whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant had suffered from having the “Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood”,  the evidence before the Tribunal is that she is well.

17. In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has had a fair opportunity to fully put her case before the Tribunal and that any evidentiary problems discussed below are not attributable to any condition which the Tribunal needs to take into consideration, but rather indicative of poor credibility.

    Has the applicant suffered any of the claimed harm?

18. Although the second named applicant attended the hearing, he confirmed that he did not wish to give evidence.

19. For reasons discussed below, the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence in relation to significant aspects of her claims to be vague, general and lacking in details. She gave an impression of having rehearsed elements of her claims which impacted on her ability to respond openly to the questions which the Tribunal had asked. In making these observations, the Tribunal has given regard to the applicant’s mental health but as noted earlier, the Tribunal is satisfied that those aspects of the applicant’s evidence are not explainable on the basis of her mental status.

    The applicant’s employment and religious activities in Egypt

20. The applicant gave evidence that she last arrived in Australia [in] August 2014 as the holder of a [temporary] visa which was valid for one year. She stated that prior to 2014, she and her husband came to Australia on two occasions, in 2008 and in 2010 as holders of [temporary] visas. She stated that whilst she was working prior to coming to Australia, she took an approved holiday from work but she did not tell her employer that she was travelling. She stated that she no longer has the job. She stated that she received a letter of separation but she believes she would be able to get her job back. The Tribunal asked the applicant what she meant by a letter of separation and the applicant stated that as she did not explain to work that she was not returning, her employer sent her a warning letter which her [sibling] threw out. 

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she has any corroborative evidence to support her claims in relation to her work situation and she stated that she does not because this is not important to her. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s evidence that she believed she could return to her position and the applicant stated that the letter had indicated that she could be dismissed. She said if she were to return to Egypt, she would be returning at a later stage in her life. She said she does not want to return to Egypt. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s evidence in relation to her employment in Egypt lacked clarity about her employment situation and was somewhat evasive about what had happened, suggesting that the applicant was not truthful with the Tribunal about her employment, raising doubts about her credibility. Furthermore, the fact that she has not provided any corroborative evidence about what has happened with her employment raises some doubts about her claim. The Tribunal and on the basis of the available information, does not accept that the applicant has been threatened with dismissal by her employer or that through her brother, she received a letter from her employer, or that the brother had thrown out the letter, or that she was subjected to discrimination or any harm amounting to serious or significant harm. 

22. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the application for a protection visa. The applicant stated that two weeks after her arrival in Australia, she was sick and she went to see her representative with whom she spoke in Arabic.  She said that she had signed all the relevant documents and understood that the information provided must be true and correct.

23. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her religion and she stated that she is on Orthodox Christian but later said Coptic Christian. She stated that she however attends Anglican and Baptist churches. In Egypt she attended Christian churches of various faiths. In relation to the questions about her Christian related activities in Egypt, the applicant gave evidence that she went to the homes of elderly people, she worked with the disabled, she collected money for charity to help the poor, she worked with orphanages, and she went to the wealthy and asked for money. The Tribunal asked her if the assistance was only provided to Christians and she confirmed that the assistance was also provided to the Muslims who were in need. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she was involved in any other Christian related activities in Egypt and she confirmed that she was not.

24. The Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant is a Coptic Christian who attended churches of other faiths and that she was involved in the activities as outlined. The applicant on her own evidence did not only assist Christians in need but also Muslims. The applicant’s evidence that she attended churches of other Christian faiths and assisted those in need including Muslims indicate to the Tribunal that the applicant is religiously flexible. The Tribunal is satisfied that the extent of the applicant’s Christian related activities did not give her a significant profile, or any prominent role within the church, local or the wider community, or that those activities mean that she was or could be imputed or perceived to be proselytising, or having a leadership profile, or a profile which was adverse or could have been perceived by any Islamic group, or person, or the authorities as being adverse. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s activities were altruistic in nature. The Tribunal is satisfied that given the applicant’s limited profile, the applicant did not suffer any harm in Egypt on the basis of her Christian faith and or activities.

25. The applicant gave evidence that in Egypt, she worked for [number] years in [a workplace] in [field] and that she was promoted after [number] years of service The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s claim that she was persecuted at work. The applicant stated that after Morsi left the presidency and after the revolution, extremism commenced. She said they saw her helping the women and disapproved of her church activities. She said she was threatened to be killed. The Tribunal asked her when she was threatened to which the applicant replied that this occurred at different times in 2013. Asked to clarify again when she was persecuted at work and the applicant now stated that in about July 2013 when she was walking in the street, she was followed by two people on their motorbikes who threatened to kill her. She said ideologies in Egypt changed and because she was known she faced disapproval. The Tribunal asked again when she was persecuted at work and now the applicant stated that after Morsi, her manager told her that she was an infidel.

26. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s responses to questions about her claims of being persecuted at work were unresponsive, vague, general and did not provide details about those alleged occasions of harm, raising doubts about her claims and credibility. On the basis of the available information and given those concerns, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was ever persecuted or ill-treated at work as claimed. It is noteworthy that the applicant worked for the same organisation for [number] years suggesting a level of satisfaction with her employment circumstances and on her own evidence, she was promoted, albeit after [number] years.  For the same reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that she was ever called an infidel at work, or that she was verbally abused, or that she was denied bonuses or promotions (as claimed in Departmental interview), or that she experienced any serious or significant harm at work, or in the streets on any of the claimed basis.

    The claims in relation to [Ms B]

27. The applicant gave evidence that she met [Ms A] at the end of 2013 because [Ms A] was on the list of those requiring assistance. [Ms A] lived with [Ms B] who was also a Christian Orthodox. She stated that [Ms C] is [Ms A]’s neighbour who is a Muslim whom the applicant met two weeks after meeting [Ms A]. [Ms E] is [Ms C]’s daughter. The applicant stated that [Ms C] was about [age] years of age when they met. She stated that through the church, she helped [Ms C].

28. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her claims that she was harassed and threatened because of [Ms B]. The applicant gave evidence that [Ms A] had a [relative] called [Ms B]. [Ms A] told her about [Ms E] who is the daughter of the Muslim neighbour [Ms C] who needed help because she was poor and disabled. She took [Ms B] and [Ms E] to visit [Ms C] who talked about her situation and asked for help. The applicant said that [Ms C] told her that her children do not work and that she needed assistance. [Ms C] explained that she was annoyed at her son [Mr D] for joining Islamists’ groups and that he wanted his mother and sister to wear the Niqab with which [Ms C] disagreed.  [Mr D] accused the applicant of wanting to convert his mother to Christianity.  [Ms C] said she preferred to be a Christian. The applicant said that she calmed [Ms C] down and that sheiks and Islamic groups faced her and questioned her about [Ms C] and of being an infidel.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify her claims relating to harassment and threats. The applicant referred to [Ms B]. Asked again to clarify and she stated that the first incident occurred [in] March 2014 when [Mr D] and a sheikh came and threatened to kill her and to tell her to stay away from [Ms B]. The Tribunal asked her if that was the only occasion and the applicant replied that there was an incident in the middle of March 2014 and another one in July 2014. Later in the course of the hearing, the applicant gave the date of [date] March 2014 when she said [Mr D] and two others came to the house and threatened her with sticks, pushed her husband and broke a cross. The Tribunal asked her to confirm if they were the only three occasions and the applicant did not answer; she stated that at the beginning it was extremists. The Tribunal asked her again if they were the only occasions and the applicant said that there were only three occasions but there were the threats in the streets and over the telephone. The Tribunal referred to the application for a protection visa and noted that although the month of March was mentioned, the three specific dates that she referred to were not mentioned in the application for a protection visa and asked the applicant to explain. The applicant stated that she was asking for protection and she does not want to return to Egypt. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that the fact that the three specific dates were not mentioned could raise doubts about the claims to which the applicant responded “please believe me…..” and said that she explained all to her lawyer (referring to the representative).  The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s evidence in relation to the specific incidents of harassment and threats was problematic; she required substantial prompting and requests for clarifications about matters that are significant and form the integral aspects of her claims. The Tribunal appreciates that the hearing is indeed the applicant’s opportunity to provide details about the claims, however the fact that there is no mention of the specific dates relating to the claimed harm in the application for a protection visa suggests fabrication, raising doubts about the applicant’s credibility.

2. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the timing of applying for a protection visa. The applicant gave evidence that she sought advice from a lawyer about protection two weeks after her arrival in Australia [in] August 2014. The Tribunal noted that the application was lodged [in] October 2014 and that the delay could raise doubts about her claims. The applicant reiterated that she sought advice two weeks after her arrival in Australia. The Tribunal is of the view that given the applicant’s claimed harm in Egypt and fear of future harm, it is reasonable to draw an adverse inference based on the delay in lodging the application for a protection visa. Her evidence that she sought advice two weeks after her arrival in Australia is difficult to accept in the context of the delay in lodging the application. It is difficult for the Tribunal to accept that a representative would not be aware that delay in lodging an application is a matter that could be taken into consideration by a decision-maker in assessing protection claims. The Tribunal is satisfied that the delay in lodging the application supports the findings that the applicant did not suffer any of the claimed harm, and/or the applicant did not have a subjective fear of harm, raising doubts about her claims. Whilst a delay of two months is arguably not significant, in this context and for the reasons stated, the Tribunal has decided to draw adverse conclusions on the basis of the delay.

3. Although the Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant had known persons called [Ms A], [Ms B], [Ms C], [Mr D] and [Ms E], on the basis of the available information and in light of the Tribunal’s above-noted concerns about the applicant’s credibility and evidentiary problems, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had encouraged or suggested that anyone should convert to Christianity, or that [Ms B] had converted to Christianity, or that [Mr D] had associations with Islamists groups, or that he or any of his associates had threatened the applicant (and/or her husband), or that [Mr D] or his friends ever aggressively entered her home, or that they ever destroyed any of religious items in her home, or that anyone had accused the applicant of being involved in any religious conversion of [Ms B], or that she was ever attacked for any of the claimed reasons, including, religious activities, or claimed involvement in the conversion of [Ms B], or that she was targeted by any person or group in Egypt, or that she departed Egypt in August 2014 because she feared harm.  For the stated reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has suffered any of the claimed harm.

   The applicant’s Christian-related activities in Australia

4. The applicant gave evidence that in Australia she is involved in Christian-related activities, including visiting the elderly and those in need. She provided an undated letter from [name] referring to the applicant being an active member of the [Church] and that she helps in outreach activities.  In the course of the hearing, she presented to the Tribunal Christian/spiritual related mobile text messages (sample at folio 53) which she circulates to other Christians in Australia. She also showed the Tribunal a book in which she writes Bible verses and other religious material (samples at folio is 41 to 52).

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she presented that material when she was interviewed by the Department and the applicant stated she did not because she was still preparing the material. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that the fact that the material was not provided to the Department could suggest that she has engaged in those activities for the purpose of strengthening her protection claims. The applicant disagreed and stated that she called a priest in Egypt who told her she was a servant and it is inappropriate to say so in a letter. She stated that in Australia she sits with converts; she referred to a convert by the name of [name].

6. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she has been involved with the Coptic Church in Australia and she stated that she collects money for the church. The Tribunal indicated that there is no corroborative evidence from the church about her support and she stated that this was her fault.

7. Whilst the Tribunal has accepted that the applicant is a Christian and that she has engaged in activities that are essentially altruistic in nature, on the basis of the available information and in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has engaged in other Christian-related activities, specifically the mobile text messages and the book in which she writes Bible verses and other religious material, for the purpose of strengthening her protection claims, and consequently, the Tribunal disregards that conduct.

8. However, for the purposes of complementary protection, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s activities in Australia including sending mobile text messages, writing Bible verses in her book, collecting money for the church, and meeting a convert called [name] do not give her a significant profile, or impute her with actual or perceived proselytising.  For the stated reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if she were to return to Egypt, there is a real risk that she would suffer significant harm based on those activities, or any other ground.

   Is there a real chance or real risk of serious and or significant harm occurring to the applicant on her return to Egypt?

9. The Tribunal acknowledges that Christians in Egypt can be harmed, however the Tribunal does not accept that being a Christian or a Coptic Christian 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. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) 24 November 2015 Country Report[1] reported that following the January 2011 revolution, and particularly during the Morsi administration, “life became considerably more difficult for Copts, particularly in Upper Egypt. DFAT is aware of reports during this period of harassment and intimidation of Copts (and moderate Muslims) by more conservative Muslims, including of sporadic harassment of women with uncovered hair. There were anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged — or cajoled — to convert to Islam. However, although significant community tensions remain in some areas of Upper Egypt (particularly Minya), there have been substantial improvements under the Sisi administration in terms of personal safety and freedom of worship for Copts. DFAT assesses that most Copts from all walks of life live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, particularly in the urban centres” [2]

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

   2 DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015.D2ember 2015

10. The Tribunal gives significant weight to DFAT’s comments that Coptic Christians from all walks of life live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours. 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 her religion, or any other basis.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a significant profile or indeed any profile that would mean she faced or could face harm on that basis, or that her Christian-related activities as accepted by the Tribunal mean that she was or could be imputed or perceived to be proselytising. 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 her activities in Australia would give her an adverse profile or that she would be perceived as being proselytising, or being anti-Islam, or being anti-authorities. 

11. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant were to return to Egypt, she would engage in activities actual or perceived to be proselytising or anti-authorities, or anti-Islam, not out of fear but because the applicant is not genuinely interested in being involved in any such activities. 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 aimed at helping the disadvantaged, irrespective of their religion or religious ideologies. 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 she would suffer serious or significant harm.

12. Therefore, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does 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. 

13. In essence, in consideration of the evidence as a whole, including the applicant’s individual circumstances either singularly or cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution, or that there is a real chance that she would suffer serious harm for any other claimed reason, either singularly or cumulatively. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.  Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

14. The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant is eligible for complementary protection. In consideration of the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant 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 applicant’s being removed from Australia to Egypt, 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). 

15. 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

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

    Antoinette Younes
    Senior Member