1503861 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4421

1503861 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4421 (14 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1503861

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:14 September 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 14 September 2016 at 11:04am

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 applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2.    The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa [in] October 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] February 2015. A copy of his claims and evidence are at Annexure A.

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.

Refugee criterion

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.    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.

6.    Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

7.    There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

8.    Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

9.    Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

10.      Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

11.      Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

12.      In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

Complementary protection criterion

13.      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’).

14.      ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

15.      There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

Section 499 Ministerial Direction

16.      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

17.      The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Convention in Egypt and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

18.      For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

19.      Central to the applicant's case is his claim that he, a Coptic Christian, has had a love relationship with [Ms A], a Muslim and that he has been and will be persecuted by [Ms A’s] family, the security forces whether they be the army or police and also a friend of [Ms A’s] father who was considered like a father of the mosque. However, for the following reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s evidence in relation to this alleged relationship rings true.

20.      In the applicant’s [temporary] visa application lodged [in] April 2013 he stated that his fiancé was [Ms B] but when asked to disclose his other relationships at hearing on 18 August 2016 he failed to identify this relationship until it was put to him by the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not indicate at hearing on 18 August 2016 that he was [Ms B’s] fiance in April 2013 which was some 4 months before he allegedly fell in love with [Ms A]. The Tribunal also finds that the evidence of this relationship is inconsistent with what he stated at hearing which was that he had only had two relationships in which he had fallen in love (that is with [Ms C] at University and [Ms A]) and that [Ms A] was something special and he had asked [Ms A] to marry him.

21.      The applicant has stated that he did not disclose his relationship with [Ms B] at hearing because it was not a love relationship and he did not love anyone except [Ms A], however one of the reasons why he identified that his relationship with [Ms A] was special was because he had asked her to marry him and they had wanted to marry.

22.      The applicant’s adviser has subsequently stated that the applicant has a clear mental distinction between a relationship with a female and a love relationship and that only a serious relationship was recognised as a love relationship and there was a clear distinction between a non-serious and/or casual relationship and one involving love. She has also stated that the applicant’s engagement to [Ms B] was purely to satisfy his mother and that he had no feelings of love for [Ms B] and that the engagement was conducted so that they would be permitted to spend time together and that it would be highly disrespectful if the applicant were to approach the daughter of his mother’s close friend without establishing an engagement first.

23.      The Tribunal has considered this explanation but does not find that it rings true. That is because the Tribunal considers that if the applicant considered his relationship with [Ms B] as non-serious or casual and that he was only engaged to her because she was the daughter of the applicant’s mother, then he would not have declared that relationship to the Australian government in his [temporary] visa.

24.      The Tribunal finds that the [temporary] visa application is a contemporaneous document in relation to the applicant’s circumstances as he declared them to the Australian government at the time the application was signed by him [in] April 2013. In the absence of any other explanation, then the Tribunal finds the most obvious explanation for him declaring to the Australian government that [Ms B] was his fiancé was because she was his fiancé and he was planning on marrying her at that time. This means that the Tribunal rejects the applicant’s subsequent claims that his and [Ms B’s] relationship was not serious. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal has also taken into account that one of the applicant’s own explanations as to why he identified his relationship with [Ms A] as special was because he had asked her to marry him. In the Tribunal’s view, this flies in the face of the adviser’s statement that the applicant’s notion of engagement was for the purpose of male and females spending time together when his own evidence was that he allegedly proposed to [Ms A] because they had established a romantic relationship.

25.      The Tribunal finds that the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to amend and adapt his evidence to suit the occasion. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s non-disclosure of his relationship to [Ms B] at hearing is such that he has not been truthful about his previous romantic relationships.  This means that the Tribunal finds that he is not a witness of truth. This means that it does not believe that he has been telling the truth about his alleged relationship with [Ms A]. In reaching this decision, the Tribunal has also considered the timing of his relationship with [Ms B], that is the Tribunal finds he was holding himself out to third parties as the fiancé of [Ms B] some 4 months before he allegedly fell in love with [Ms A]. The Tribunal has also considered that the applicant’s testimony about his willingness to come to Australia without [Ms A] as well as his lack of knowledge about her whereabouts does not strike it as the behaviour of someone who is in a special relationship with [Ms A].

26.      The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has fabricated his relationship with [Ms A] in order to found a claim for protection. The Tribunal’s overall impression of the applicant’s evidence about [Ms A] is that he was not providing testimony about a relationship that has occurred. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has ever met [Ms A]. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that she and the applicant were romantically involved, or that the applicant converted [Ms A] to Christianity, or that he fled Egypt because of her family, or because of a friend of [Ms A’s] father who was considered like a father of the mosque or that the security forces including the army and the police are after him. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has considered the medical report that states the applicant attended on [a date in] August 2014 and was suffering from a [specified injury] however given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence it is not prepared to accept that these injuries, if sustained, were because the applicant was attacked by [Ms A’s] family.  Neither does it accept that [Ms A’s] father masterminded the applicant’s car accident. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has considered the statement by [Witness A] that is dated [in] October 2014 however given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give that statement enough weight to accept the claim that the applicant was involved with [Ms A] or that [Ms A’s] father masterminded the applicant’s car accident. Neither does it accept that as a result, the applicant’s [specified relatives] have been threatened or that his mother has had to move.  In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has considered the statement by [Witness A] that is dated [in] October 2014 however given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give that statement enough weight to accept this claim. The Tribunal has also considered the letter from [Organisation 1] dated [in] April 2016 and the letter from [Witness B] dated [in] March 2016. Again, given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give that statement enough weight to accept the claim that the applicant’s family is being targeted. The Tribunal has also considered the document from [Father A] dated [in] September 2014 which says the applicant has suffered much harassment and persecution from the Muslims. Given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give this general statement enough weight to accept the applicant’s claim.

27.      The applicant has stated that in 2010 he was accused of trying to convert [Mr Z] to Christianity and that as a result, he was detained and interrogated by the police and accused of a theft but never charged. The applicant’s willingness to provide false testimony about [Ms A] including his alleged conversion of her leads the Tribunal to find that he has also provided false testimony about his alleged attempts or perceived alleged attempts to convert [Mr Z] as well as testimony about his subsequent harassment by [Mr Z’s] family and the authorities. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal has also considered that at hearing, the applicant’s evidence did not ring true because he was making up evidence as he went along. For example, the applicant initially stated that nothing happened to him because of [Mr Z] after [a date in] June 2010 but subsequently changed that evidence and stated that he continued to be harassed by [Mr Z’s] family and the police after that date. The applicant also stated that after [that date in] June 2010 [Mr Z’s] father was so concerned that [Mr Z] was going to convert to Christianity that he did not allow [Mr Z] to speak to his Muslim friends however when asked why his father would not allow [Mr Z] to talk to Muslims if he was worried about him converting to Christianity, the applicant’s response was evasive and he was not able to explain. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has ever tried to convert [Mr Z] or that he was perceived by anyone including [Mr Z’s] family or the authorities to have tried to convert [Mr Z].  The Tribunal does not accept that as a result, the applicant was harmed by [Mr Z’s] family or harassed, detained or interrogated by the police or that he has been identified as, or is known as a Christian activist or a religious activist. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s family was interrogated by police. In reaching these conclusions, the Tribunal has considered the statement by [Witness A] that is dated [in] October 2014 however given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give that statement enough weight to accept the claim that the applicant was harassed, beaten and detained many times, or that he was charged in relation to theft or that the applicant was helping [Mr Z] who wanted to convert. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has also considered the document from [Father A] dated [in] September 2014 which says the applicant has suffered much harassment and persecution from the Muslims. Given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give this general statement enough weight to accept the applicant’s claim.

28.      The Tribunal accepts the applicant is Christian and may have been the co ordinator of a Christian social group at University.  While the Tribunal accepts this, the applicant also stated at hearing that he has never tried to convert anyone to Christianity other than [Mr Z] or [Ms A]. For the reasons explained above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been telling the truth about his alleged attempts at conversion of either [Ms A] or [Mr Z]. Given this, and given that the applicant stated that his alleged conversion of [Mr Z] was one of the reasons why ‘the eye’ was on him because he was known to sit with a lot of young Muslim men and was ‘showing them the way’, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was known to sit with young Muslim men and perceived to be converting them or that he has suffered as a result. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has also considered the document from [Father A] dated [in] September 2014 which says the applicant has suffered much harassment and persecution from the Muslims. Given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give this general statement enough weight to accept the applicant’s claim.

29.      The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant would be perceived to have converted anyone else including while he was at university however because the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been telling the truth about his alleged attempts at conversion of either [Ms A] or [Mr Z] and the applicant has stated that he never attempted to convert others, The Tribunal does not accept that Muslims accused him of saying that words in the Koran were lies and that this caused him problems at University and the police were involved. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has also considered the document from [Father A] dated [in] September 2014 which says the applicant has suffered much harassment and persecution from the Muslims. Given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give this general statement enough weight to accept the applicant’s claim.

30.      Given that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has converted or has been perceived to have converted Muslims to Christianity in the past, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will convert or will be seen to convert Muslims to Christianity. 

31.      The Tribunal has accepted the applicant is a Coptic Christian. The applicant has stated that he has experienced many years of discrimination and persecution, however the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has experienced the discrimination and persecution as articulated in his statement and at hearing. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has also considered the document from [Father A] dated [in] September 2014 which says the applicant has suffered much harassment and persecution from the Muslims. Given its concerns with the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give this general statement enough weight to accept the applicant’s claim.

32.      The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has noted in its most recent Thematic Report dated 24 November 2015 that “day to day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overly affected by communal tensions and that 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”. DFAT also notes that, “there have been substantial improvements under the Sisi administration in terms of personal safety and freedom of worship for Copts”, widespread attacks have ceased and “most Copts from all walks of life live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, particularly in urban centres”.

33.      Having regard to the country information above, the Tribunal finds that, while tensions and the potential for sectarian violence continue to exist, the overall situation for Coptic Christians has improved since the violence of August 2013 and is relatively secure.

34.      Having regard to the country information above and the fact that the applicant is a Coptic Christian from Cairo, the Tribunal does not accept that he faces a real chance of serious harm because of his religion.

35.      The Tribunal has considered the applicant's accepted claims both singularly and cumulatively however, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

36.      Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant is a Coptic Christian however the country information does not suggest that he faces a real risk of significant harm because of this. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's accepted claims both singularly and cumulatively however the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

37.      There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

DECISION

38.      The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Angela Cranston
Member

ANNEXURE A

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

39.      In his protection visa application, the applicant stated as follows:

I have been very active with the Christian community since I was young. In my 20s I began to focus on the youth group activities. I conducted Sunday school for the older teens, organised regular social gatherings, trips and camps. At uni I was the coordinator of the Christian social group. Through my work with youth I faced many years of discrimination and persecution.

At uni there were many incidents of discrimination from lecturers and some students but a more serious issue occurred April of my last year at uni. I was organising a trip to visit site where the holy family had travelled to Egypt. Many Muslims were interested in knowing this information. Some fanatical Muslims do not like the interest that I was creating among the Muslims so they try to create a case that I said words in the Koran were lies. This case caused me problems at uni and police were involved.

In 2010 my neighbour [Mr Z], started expressing interest in knowing more about Christianity. Previously [Mr Z] and I were not very close but after a while I trusted him and started helping him with information about Christ in Christianity. After a while when his father started to suspect I reduced contact with him except for organised times we would meet at monasteries. [Mr Z] was from a family with many members in army or police officers so I was scared to even appear to be too friendly. It was eventually known that he was intending to convert. I went through very serious interrogations especially from one particular police officer, [Officer A] who was [Mr Z’s] uncle.  I was detained for a day the questioning was very intense and the insults very deep. The authorities were trying to find any way to implicate me but were unable. My family was also interrogated and I was further interrogated in the police station two more times. I used to the help of a lawyer because I was afraid that his uncle would try and fabricate proof against me. In the end I was told that they will find a way me to make sure I stop causing problems for Muslims.

[Officer A] and two of his colleagues started to harass me. I was called up for questioning many times for any incident that occurred in the area even if it was not related to religion. Once I was required to travel to a police station in a remote area more than an hour drive for interrogation over a theft that occurred in my area. I was always treated badly on a few occasions I was slapped on the face and pushed.

In 2013 I became romantically involved with a Muslim lady [Ms A]. I used to meet [Ms A] away from our area and she would take a scarf off when we were together. In January 2014 through sheer bad luck [Ms A’s] cousin saw us together. At first he was shocked that she had her scarf off. He started to interrogate me I tried to pretend I was Muslim but he did not believe. He took her home and early the next day [Ms A’s] father and a Sheik came to our home. They terrorised everyone and her father tried to attack me but the Sheik stopped him.

I was warned not to see [Ms A] and she was forcibly married to her cousin.

I was then involved in an intentional car accident. I was not seriously harmed and at first I thought it was an actual accident that I found out from [Ms A’s] father that he was behind it. I stopped seeing [Ms A] after she married but after about two months she contacted me wanting to leave her husband, be baptised and we marry. I was able to see her at the monastery and the church was trying to help us leave Egypt. [Ms A] was baptised but remained with her husband till we could organise travel. There were a lot of difficulties for [Ms A’s] travel papers. On [a date in] July [Ms A] called me and she was very distressed and crying. Her husband had physically harmed her because his suspicions were very strong that she was still involved with Christianity and me. It was very dangerous for her to leave her home but she had been violently attacked and did not want to return. She was taken by the priest and I went to the monastery 10 days later to see her. Two days after [Ms A] left her home my family and I were leaving our home to go to church and I suddenly heard my sister scream and I felt a strong hit on my back. I turned and [Ms A’s] father started beating me hard. There was another man with him who I understood was [Ms A’s] husband. There was a lot of screaming and some men tried to stop the fight. [Ms A’s] father kept shouting I am kafir and trying to the religion of dogs.

I was bleeding from my mouth and nose and my body bruised. They were blaming me for taking [Ms A] and wanted to know where she was. Later that day I was taken by police station, detained two nights treated badly. My lawyer argued that there was no evidence against me so I should be released. I was allowed to sign release papers and then I was detained again immediately for another 24 hours with the excuse that they were further investigating a previous theft that I had been detained for. I visited [Ms A] twice and then she was relocated and I was not allowed any further contact. Until I left Egypt I was continually harassed by [her] father, husband, a sheik and people in my local area.

40.      The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 August 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

41.      The applicant confirmed that his application had been read back to him and was correct and he did not wish to change anything.

42.      The applicant stated he came to Australia [in] September 2014. Before that his last permanent address in Egypt was in [District 1] where he had been born and he was moving between his place and his [relative’s] suburb which was about one hour away depending on traffic. He stated his mother lived in [District 1].

43.      The applicant stated he met [Ms A] on [a date in] August 2013 in a coffee shop. She moved after her marriage in February 2014.

44.      The applicant stated he had studied a [tertiary course] at University from [specified years]. He then worked for [number] years at [Employer 1]. In Australia he had worked for two years [at specified duties].

45.      The applicant stated that he came to Australia because he was running away from [Ms A’s] family, from the security forces including the army and police and also a friend of [Ms A’s] father who was considered like a father of the mosque. He stated all of them were giving him trouble and harassing him.

46.      The applicant stated he had been detained by the police a lot because of [Mr Z] and [Ms A]. For [Ms A], he was detained on [a date in] July for 48 hours and on [a date in] August 2014. For [Mr Z], he was detained on [a date in] February 2010 and his family was also interrogated [in] March 2010. He was also detained in [District 1] on [two days in] March 2010. He stated on [a date in] June 2010 he was detained in [a specified] station which was [distance] from Cairo.

47.      The Tribunal asked if anything happened to him after [the date in] June 2010 because of [Mr Z]. He stated on that date he had been physically assaulted. He stated after that day he stayed away from [Mr Z] who lived on the street corner since they were young. The Tribunal asked how he managed to stay away from [Mr Z] after [that date in] June 2010. He stated [Mr Z’s] father was so concerned that he was going to convert to Christianity that he locked his son up and the last thing he had heard was that [Mr Z] was under psychological treatment because of this and even his father would not allow him to speak to his Muslim friends. The Tribunal asked why that was. He stated [Mr Z’s] father was persuaded that [Mr Z] was going to convert to Christianity and [Mr Z] was arguing with his father about religion.

48.      The applicant stated at the beginning of January 2010 he and [Mr Z] started becoming close and when he felt that [Mr Z] needed to know more about Christianity, he helped him. The Tribunal asked if [Mr Z] wanted to know more about Christianity why didn’t he refer him to a priest. He stated as much as he could he helped him and he actually took him to church and to a convent in [a location] which was about half an hour to an hour away and his father started suspecting things.  

49.      The applicant stated [Mr Z] wanted to know about the Orthodox faith. The applicant said the best place was for him to learn was at the church and he also wanted to be in the mass and [Mr Z] attended 7 to 8 masses. He stated [Mr Z] was with [Father B] 4 times and the applicant took him two times to the other convent where two people helped [Mr Z]. 

50.      The Tribunal asked if the applicant if he had tried to convert anyone other than [Mr Z] and [Ms A]. He stated he was a sociable person and when there was an opportunity to talk about Christ or the Koran he would. He stated he was not a preacher or a pastor but he did talk to people generally about the Koran but nothing happened.

51.       The Tribunal asked why [Mr Z’s] father stopped him talking to his Muslim friends. He stated [Mr Z’s] father was scared of his reaction and thought it was better to keep him at home. He also stated [Mr Z’s] father wanted to support him for a little while until he forgot and then he would let him go. He stated [Mr Z’s] father would also bring home speakers from the mosque to calm [Mr Z] down. He stated this happened to [Mr Z] until 2011 but the applicant’s relationship with [Mr Z] stopped completely after [the date in] June 2010. He stated after 2010 [Mr Z’s] family hated him because [Mr Z’s] character changed and he thought [Mr Z] had become a drug addict. The applicant also stated that nothing happened to the applciant because of [Mr Z] after [the date in] June 2010. He then stated he was harassed after 2010 because [Mr Z’s] family may have said something to him if he was on the street or the police might interrupt his travels and then let him go. The Tribunal put to him that he had not stated that in the application. He stated he told the story to his agent who had written about his active personality. He stated she also had told him he would be interviewed.

52.      The applicant stated he and [Ms A] had been together since [a date in] August 2013 and were together for about a year. He stated he met her at [Friend A’s] birthday. [Friend A] had invited both males and females and Christians and Muslims to attend.

53.      When asked how he would describe their relationship, he stated he had met so many girls in his life but none like [Ms A] who had a beautiful heart. The applicant stated that before [Ms A], he had been in love at University with [Ms C] and they had been together for two years. He stated the next time he fell in love was with [Ms A]. He stated he thought the relationship with [Ms A] turned from friendship to love within a month of their meeting. He stated he didn’t love [Ms C] the way he loved [Ms A] and he had spent 10 years with others who he had not fallen in love with but [Ms A] was special. He stated he asked [Ms A] to marry him in January 2014 and they wanted to marry.

54.      The Tribunal asked why [Ms A’s] cousin was so upset to see her with a Christian given that she had attended [Friend A’s] birthday where Christians and Muslims and males and females had mixed. He stated it was because [Ms A] was not wearing the hejab. The applicant then stated [Ms A’s] father came to his house [in] January 2014 with the Sheik from the mosque and saw a picture of Jesus and the Virgin Mary to make sure that he was Christian and warned him to stay away from [Ms A]. He stated [later that month] he was driving and a semi-trailer hit him. He stated after one week he was walking on the street and saw [Ms A’s] father who said ‘oh so you are still alive’ and again threatened him. He then stated he was told [Ms A] was married.  He stated he stopped all communication with [Ms A] because of the accident and he was concerned for his life. He stated after she got married in February, two months later, [Ms A] rang him and they were trying to go overseas together. The applicant stated [Ms A] was baptised and after that, on [a date in] July 2014 he was attacked by [Ms A’s] father on the street because [Ms A] had not come home. He stated later on that day he was detained. He stated he saw [Ms A] after that. He stated he thought about coming to Australia when [Ms A] went to the convent on [a date in] July 2014 and they were both trying to come to Australia, however it was very hard for [Ms A] because she needed the consent of her husband to leave and because the applicant’s life was in danger he came to Australia alone.

55.      When asked where was [Ms A] now he stated he last heard she was in the convent and on [a date in] August 2014 he had visited her there but after that she had moved and no one knew where she was.   

56.      The applicant stated it was still unsafe for him to return to Egypt because the threats were still coming and they were threatening his [specified relatives]. He stated his mother had had to move.

57.      The Tribunal then put to him that he had lodged a [temporary] visa application [in] April 2013 which was a long time before [the date in] July 2014. He stated his interest to come to Australia was increased because of the threat to his life and in 2013 he applied for a visa but he had been rejected. He stated [Mr Z’s] dad and [family] were harassing him and on top of that he was a social activist, Christian activist and a religious activist. The Tribunal put to him that his evidence was that [Mr Z’s] family was not after him in 2013 and that he had nothing to do with [Mr Z] after 2010. He stated the eye was on him because his name was known in the area and he was known to sit with the lot of young Muslim men so he had a lot of little problems but [Ms A] and [Mr Z] were his big problems.

58.      The Tribunal also indicated that in his application lodged [in] April 2013 he had stated that [Ms B] was his fiancée. He agreed and stated their relationship did not last for long and in the next application he did not mention her name because the relationship had ceased. The Tribunal put to him that she had been identified as his fiance however when the Tribunal had asked if he had had any other relationships other than [Ms A] he had said no. He stated it was not a love relationship, he had had more than 10 other relationships, however he didn’t love anyone except [Ms A]. The Tribunal indicated that it was finding it hard to understand why he had not mentioned his relationship with [Ms B] to the Tribunal however she was mentioned in his [temporary] visa application and he had also stated at hearing that a few months later he was in love with [Ms A]. He stated he had many relationships and many friends. He stated he was talking about real love that had never happened except with [Ms A] and [Ms C]. He stated he did not mention [Ms B] when he had put in another application and the engagement was only to satisfy his mother.

59.      The Tribunal put to him that DFAT’s assessment was that Copts were generally at a low risk of harm especially in urban centres and that since Sisi widespread attacks against Copts had ceased. He stated Sisi was the best president but there were Islamic movements within Egypt that was stronger than he was. The Tribunal also put to him that DFAT had stated that while occasional violence involving Copts was likely to re-occur particularly in Upper Egypt, authorities were generally committed to preventing them. He stated he was living in constant worry in Australia and he had monitored the news from Egypt and there had been daily incidents and that any rumour of a relationship between a Muslim and Christian was dangerous. The Tribunal put to him that DFAT said that on a day-to-day basis in urban areas, the state had a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts, and generally did so and that Copts facing harassment were able to go to local police for protection and that under the Sisi government, the security services saw it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances.

60.      The Tribunal asked if the applicant could relocate somewhere in Egypt if he could not go back to where he came from. He stated that was not possible because if he wanted to go anywhere else then they wanted to know who he was and his problems would be increased because they would think he had problems. He stated no one would give him a house to rent but if he found a place how could he work because every company would ask for a police check and the problem with [Ms A] and [Mr Z] would show. The Tribunal put to him that DFAT had said that in Cairo and Alexandria there was greater opportunity for employment for Copts. He stated even if he had a place to work and live how he could change his character. He stated he was a social and religious activist but not a political one. He stated he believed in his God and religion, he was not a pastor or preacher, he was a lay-man and this was why the Muslim lay-men listened to him and believed him. He said this was something in him and he could not change. The Tribunal put to him that it was not sure that he had actually said that in his statement and if he was going to go out and trying to convert Muslims to Christianity the Tribunal was not sure that he had said that in his statement. He stated he was not converting them, he was just showing them the way and he did not care if they were converted or not, he was just showing them the way.

61.      The Tribunal indicated it had concerns because he had identified the name of another woman in his [temporary] visa application. The Tribunal indicated it would also take into account that he had previously tried to come to Australia a year before his problems commenced.

62.      The applicant stated he had things happen after he left Egypt and the sons of the Sheik and [Ms A’s] brother went to his mother’s home and broke things and his mother had moved.

63.      Following the hearing, the Tribunal sent the following letter pursuant to section 424A:

The particulars of the information are:
In your application for a [temporary] visa lodged [in] April 2013 you stated that your
fiancé was [Ms B].

This is relevant because the Tribunal may find you did not indicate at hearing on 18 August 2016 that you were [Ms B’s] fiance in April 2013 which was some 5 months before you allegedly fell in love with [Ms A]. It may also be inconsistent with what you stated at hearing which was that you had only had two relationships in which you had fallen in love (that is with [Ms C] at University and [Ms A]) and that [Ms A] was something special and you had asked [Ms A] to marry you.

The fact that you did not identify that you had been the fiancé of [Ms B] in April 2013 at hearing may lead the Tribunal to find you have not been truthful about your previous romantic relationships, that you are not a witness of truth and that you have not been telling the truth about your alleged relationship with [Ms A]. If the Tribunal finds that you have not been telling the truth, then subject to your comments, the decision under review would be affirmed.

You applied for a [temporary] visa to come to Australia [in] April 2013 before you allegedly met [Ms A] and nearly three years after you allegedly last saw [Mr Z]. This is relevant because the Tribunal may find that the timing of this [temporary] visa application is not consistent with your alleged fear of persecution arising out of your alleged attempt to convert [Mr Z] to Christianity in 2010. If the Tribunal finds that you have not been telling the truth, then subject to your comments, the decision under review would be affirmed.

You are also invited to provide the following information in writing:
Any information that addresses the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Thematic Report dated 24 November 2015 (attached) that states that the day to day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overtly affected by communal tensions, that most Egyptians especially those living in urban areas work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity.

1. The applicant responded as follows:

   Fiance [Ms B]
   When asked about relationships, [the applicant] confirmed that there was a relationship with [Ms A] and further disclosed a relationship with [Ms C] which had not previously been mentioned. The applicant clearly stated that he responded to the Tribunal question with the understanding of a love relationship. [The applicant] claimed to have had a lot of relationships and continue to provide names and differentiated these relationships from ones he associated with love. It is notable that [the applicant] mentioned [Ms C] and not only [Ms A] as one of the love relationships.

   It appears that [the applicant] has a clear mental distinction between relationship with a female and a love relationship with a female. This is a very typical thinking process among young Egyptians. Within the Egyptian culture there is no terminology for boyfriend girlfriend relationships is present in Western cultures. More importantly, only serious relationships are recognised as relationships of love (literal translation). There is a clear distinction in the Egyptian mind of what can be considered a non-serious and/or casual relationship and one involving love particularly given that theoretically, the former does not exist in Egyptian culture. As he explained, [the applicant] was responding to the Tribunal question based on his mental perception of relationship i.e. a relationship of love.

   The Tribunal appeared to have difficulty reconciling that [the applicant] would state that [Ms B] was his fiance yet not view her as having been in a relationship. [The applicant] provided a very clear explanation that this engagement was purely to satisfy his mother and that he had no feelings of love for [Ms B]. [Ms B] was the daughter of [her named mother] who is a close friend of the applicant’s mother. Within the Egyptian community it is extremely common for a couple that have no or little established romantic interest in each other to engage. Engagement in Egyptian culture is conducted mainly for the purpose of the male and female to be permitted to spend time together, go out with each other and get to know each other. If romantic interest develops then the relationship progresses. This is in marked contrast to the concept of engagement in Western culture. In Western culture and engagement generally occurs after the couple have established a romantic relationship.

   Given the purpose of an engagement in Egyptian culture, [the applicant’s] explanation that he was not in a relationship with [Ms B] is clearly understood. Many marriages in Egypt are facilitated by the mothers of the prospective couple. It would be highly disrespectful if [the applicant] was to approach the daughter of his mother’s close friend without establishing an engagement first. In light of the cultural differences, [the applicant’s] engaged status on a Visa application form does not necessarily indicate that he is in a relationship with that person.

   It is essential to consider that the applicant’s responses to Tribunal questions was based on cultural understanding of specific words.

   [Temporary] visa application in April 2013
   The Tribunal appears to have drawn an adverse view of the fact that the applicant applied for a [temporary] Visa prior to having met [Ms A] and 3 years after issues with [Mr Z]. This suggests that the Tribunal has in some way linked one or more of these events together. At no time did [the applicant] claim that his intended travel to Australia in 2013 was related to any specific matter, particularly to difficulties with [Mr Z’s] case, apart from general harassment in years after 2010. [The applicant] stated that due to his Christian activity within the community and experiences in the [Mr Z] case, he became a known person in the community hence experienced harassment.