1504740 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 868

1504740 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 868 (26 April 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1504740

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:26 April 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

(i)that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

(ii)that the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

Statement made on 26 April 2017 at 1:59pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Egypt – Religion – Coptic Christian – Attack on family members – Muslim fundamentalists – Employment opportunities – Kidnapping – Physical and emotional abuse – State protection

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.12, Schedule 2

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] February 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] March 2015.

3. The first named applicant (the applicant) appeared before the Tribunal on 15 March 2017 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.

   THE LAW

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

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

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

8. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

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

   Member of the same family unit

10. Subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in r.1.12 of the Regulations to include a spouse and dependent children.

11. The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicants will suffer serious harm on return to Egypt for reason of their religion or alternatively, whether there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm if they are removed from Australia to Egypt.   For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    Summary of claims

12. In a statutory declaration dated [in] February 2014 the applicant claims:

13. He is an Egyptian national of Coptic Orthodox Christian faith.

14. He was living in [Town 1] during the famous incidents in which Muslims attacked the properties of Christians and killed [number] Christians from the village.  He was personally exposed to gunshots.  His family had to remain at home for four days and were unable to leave even to buy food.

15. Working as [an occupation 1] he was harassed by fellow fanatic Muslim employees who insulted him and put pressure on him to convert to Islam.

16. When he married in January 2004 he lived in [City 1] which is about [distance] from [Town 1]. He requested a transfer to a [location] closer to his residence but was refused because he is Christian and the [manager] of [his] department is a Muslim fanatic.  Other workmates were able to obtain transfers and so he complained to the [Public Official 1] about the [manager].  After an investigation the [manager] was forced to approve his request for a transfer but he moved him to a village which is even further away and he was forced to spend long hours travelling. He remained in that situation for about two years until he was transferred to [Location 1] where he kept working until he left Egypt.  During that time he requested many transfers but they were refused.

17. In general Christians are treated badly on the streets, at work and on public transport.  Because his wife is not veiled transport drivers refused to pick them up.  Shop owners refused to sell them items.

18. In the area where he lived there were about five mosques which surrounded his home and one of them was known to be a centre for fanatical Muslims.   He and his family were afraid to pass by because of the harassment they received.  They couldn’t avoid walking past that mosque as it was near the entrance to his apartment.  They did not go out much for fear of being persecuted and treated inhumanely especially at prayer times.

19. They suffered every day from the threats and curses coming out of the microphones of the mosques.  This instilled panic and terror in the hearts of their children.  This was in addition to what they heard all day on transport and in shops.

20. There were a lot of demonstrations coming from the mosques accompanied by riots, violence and shootings.  They were always fearful of going out.

21. In their street most of the neighbours were Muslims and some were extremely fanatic and harassed his wife when she was on the balcony.  His wife was also exposed to physical harassment by Muslims who hurt her, pulled her hair and touched her private parts when she walked on the street.

22. His [Relative A] was kidnapped by Muslim extremists in July 2013.  A big ransom was demanded and the family could not pay it.  They notified the police who did nothing to help because they are Christian.  The kidnappers threatened to kill his [Relative A] and other [members of] the family including his [own child].  The situation continued for a week until they collected the ransom by borrowing from relatives and other people from the church community and selling their furniture and jewellery. 

23. They stayed at home in fear for their [child's] safety, they were living in terror and were prisoners in their own home, unable to even go to church.

24. During an interview with the Delegate [in] May 2014 the following additional claims were made:

25. His financial situation in Egypt was difficult.  His brother gave him money to come to Australia.

26. The applicant’s [extended family members] and his wife’s family live in [Town 1].  He has one [relative] living in [Country 1].

27. It was not easy for him to practice his religion in Egypt particularly in the period preceding his departure.  From 2011 he rarely went to church and practiced his religion at home.   His children were not attending school before they left Egypt because of the situation.

28. There were only two buildings in his area that were occupied by Christians.  In his building there were [number] Christian families and two of those families have fled.  There were only three families in a street of two hundred buildings.

29. When he was at college he was roomed with Muslim and was referred to as the infidel.  He also faced persecution when he joined the military in 1998. 

30. He was shot at in conflict in 2000.  His name was listed because he was accused of being in a Christian group and causing the conflict.  His [relatives] were detained and imprisoned for more than a year but he was not.

31. He stayed in [Town 1] until 2007 because of his work even though he was worried about the situation there.

32. When his wife went to say goodbye to the church before they departed Egypt a man with a beard on a motorcycle rode around her while verbally abusing her for being a Christian.  He tried to force her on to the motorcycle but she fought away and took refuge in a building.  The man waited outside for 45 minutes before leaving. 

33. Five months before leaving Egypt his wife left the house wearing a cross necklace.  A Muslim man pulled the chain off her neck and verbally abused her and told her to convert to Islam.

34. When his [Relative A] was kidnapped the kidnappers asked that he negotiate with them.  They threatened that if the ransom was not paid they would kidnap his own [child].

35. [One of his children] was slapped [in the] face when walking on the street and [another child] was confronted by a boy who was 15 or 16 years old.

36. His wife resigned from work in December 2013 but he continued to work up until a week before their departure.  After his [Relative A’s] kidnapping his wife would work one week then have two weeks off because it was not safe for the children to be home alone. 

37. Because he is [an occupation 1] the kidnappers thought he was rich.  He worked in [specific locations] but [worked privately at other times].

38. He lived where he did because he did not have the financial means to move to another place.  He was paying only [amount] whereas the minimum cost for any other apartment is [larger amount].

39. He does not believe he could return to Cairo or Alexandria because the people of Egypt have not changed and the attitudes toward Christians still exist.

40. In a pre-hearing submission dated 6 March 2017 it is submitted:

41. The applicant and his family were threatened, discriminated against and mistreated by Muslim fanatics in his community.

42. The applicant’s wife was forced to work until tendering her resignation prior to their departure.  The Department incorrectly interpreted the applicants’ ability to work as evidence for their ability to liberally move around but the reality is they were forced to continue working in order to support themselves and their children.  Due to their financial inability they resided in a poor location where they faced persecution and discrimination.

43. The applicant and his wife could neither afford not to work nor take their children to a childcare centre for they feared for their safety as their circumstances and the threats prevented them from continuing to attend school.  The Department incorrectly interpreted the applicants’ actions as evidence the family did not face imminent danger and the children were safe at home.  On the contrary the children could not go to school as there were threats to kidnap them. 

44. As a Coptic Christian family the applicants’ had active relations with the Church and its priests.  The Department erred in not giving weight to a letter from [Leader A], a priest at [Church 1] in [Town 1] who knew about their situation and ought to be considered an impartial source. 

45. The Department did not accept the applicant was involved in the kidnapping negotiations because he is not named in the police reports.  The applicant elected not to give evidence to the police directly as the authorities were reluctant to assist and this would have exposed his [child] to greater danger and put him in a direct adverse position with the kidnappers.  In such a small community all the community members are known to each other.  Being [an occupation 1] and an educated man put the applicant in a higher position than the father of the kidnapped [Relative A] who worked as a simple farmer.

46. The Department doubted the applicant’s wife’s claims because she did not wish to submit her own evidence.   It was too traumatic for her to recall the incidents and her wish should not be used as evidence to doubt her claims.

47. Further submissions and reports are referenced about the situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt.  Relocation to another city is not an option because the applicants don’t have the financial ability to relocate and the new residential area would also not be safe for such Christian people.  Although there are some areas that have many Christian residents, these areas are also under attack from terrorists.  Even the most secured church in Egypt, where the Pope resides and prays in Cairo was bombed. 

48. In a post-hearing submission provided on 23 March 2017 it is submitted that attached letters from the Coptic Church in [Australia] and Egypt support the applicant’s claims to be a high profile church servant who defends Christianity and serves his faith by spreading bible teachings to poorer Christians in rural areas in Egypt.  It is a core principle of the applicant’s faith to serve by teaching the gospel and defending his faith.  Therefore, relocation anywhere in Egypt will still place the applicant at reasonable and foreseeable risk as he will continue these Christian practices and hence will suffer persecution, aggression, inhumane and degrading treatment and physical harm.

49. Further, the fear the children have would place them in inhumane conditions if forced to return to Egypt where they were aware that they faced kidnapping threats and saw their [relative] being kidnapped and heard firsthand from him the torture and mistreatment he endured.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Background

50. At the hearing the applicant advised that after marrying he lived in [City 1] from 2003 to 2013 but during those years he maintained a regular presence in his home village of [Town 1] where he spent his weekends, visiting with family and attending to his church duties.  The area where he lived in [City 1] was a locality suitable to his financial means.  He said a small number of Christians lived there but the area was mostly occupied by strict Muslims.   He confirmed he has always worked as [an occupation 1], earning around [amount] per month.  His wife is also [an occupation 1] and earned about [amount] per month.

51. The applicant stated that his siblings who remain in [Town 1] are all much older than him and their circumstances are different to his.  He said they no longer work and they don’t go out unless it is necessary.  He said they continue to be subjected to threats, harassment and abuse from fundamentalist Muslims.

52. When asked which event caused him to depart Egypt he said there was not just one event.  He said he endured various hardships but the main factor in their decision to leave was his [Relative A’s] kidnapping and the subsequent threats made to his [family].  He said he fears returning because his [Relative A’s] kidnappers are still free and kidnappings continue to occur. 

    The applicant’s church activity

53. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s written claims do not expand upon his religious practices in Egypt and nor does the primary decision record indicate any discussion of this nature.    Consequently, at the hearing the Tribunal discussed the applicant’s church activity with him in some detail.  He stated that his family is Christian and actively involved in the Coptic Church.  He stated that his father was a church leader in [Town 1] and he too is a [leader] in the church.  In Egypt he and his family attended church services and he was involved in organizing Sunday school activities in poor villages for Christians without a church and who were at risk of being enticed into the Muslim faith.  He said his church duties in those villages angered the neighbouring Muslim villagers.  He said he had stones thrown at him, dogs were unleashed on him and he was insulted and called an infidel.  Despite this he continued to perform this work in the villages as it very important to him. 

54. More generally, the applicant stated that he cannot remain silent if someone talks about his religion in an inappropriate way.  He gave examples of being abused and physically assaulted for questioning inappropriate behaviour toward his church while travelling on public transport and of a Muslim student abusing and hitting him when he was asked to stop insulting the Christian students in his class. Further, he revealed his Christian [symbols] always draw negative comments and behaviour.

55. Based on the applicant’s oral evidence and supporting letters from the Coptic Church in Egypt and [Australia], the Tribunal accepts he is a [church leader] and was actively involved in servicing his church in Egypt in the manner described.  The Tribunal accepts he has continued a similar level of church activity since arriving in Australia.  Further, based on his oral evidence and given his accepted position in the church the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is a person who readily defends his religion against criticism and challenges attacks on his faith as claimed. 

    Kidnapping incident

56. At the hearing the applicant was asked why he thinks his family was targeted for the kidnapping and he said it is because they are an active church family and well known in the area for speaking up about and defending Christianity.  He said they drew attention to themselves.  When asked if his family is wealthy he said they are not and when the Tribunal questioned why kidnappers would target a family that is not wealthy he said the main motivation was to threaten them about their church service activities and to get them to stop.  He said he believes that initially the kidnappers thought the church would pay the ransom.  He said the original ransom demand was [amount] but that in the end they paid [a much smaller amount].

57. When asked about his personal involvement in the incident the applicant said that the [child]’s mother and father are not educated people and when the kidnapping occurred, the [child]’s father called him because he didn’t know what to do.  The applicant said he left work and went to [Town 1] to assist. He said they tried phoning [Relative A] but [the] phone was switched off but that later the kidnappers called them on [Relative A’s] phone.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant why the police report says the [child]’s father reported that the kidnappers called him.  He said that after the initial call they asked to speak to him and he began to negotiate with them to lower the amount, which was being demanded.  He said that it took about one week for [Relative A] to be released.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant how the money was paid and he said the kidnappers specified a location in the desert where there is a mountain called [name].  He said they were told to leave the money in a place, which is like a graveyard.  He said he was unfamiliar with the location and therefore cannot name the exact position but the [child]’s father knew the area well because he worked there.

3. When asked whether anything else occurred after the kidnapping the applicant stated that they were threatened not to report the matter to the police and they threatened his own children could also be kidnapped.  He said that afterwards they did not allow the children to go to school any longer and tried to keep them at home.  In closing submissions the applicant’s representative stated that after the kidnapping many of the family members migrated, especially those with young children.

4. The Tribunal pointed out that the applicant’s written claims suggest the police did nothing but it appears from the police reports, which have been provided that there was an investigation into the matter and culprits were identified.  The applicant agreed that the police followed certain procedures but despite identifying the culprits they did nothing to apprehend them.  He said the police action was inadequate and it was just a paperwork exercise.  He said it is even possible the police were involved as the police are drawn from the Muslim families.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not consider moving to another part of Egypt to avoid any possible future harm to his children.  He said that he didn’t have the financial capacity to move elsewhere and besides he had lived his whole life in that area.  He said that in any event, as a Christian he would receive the same threats and harassment anywhere.  He said that he also could not leave his church service activities behind because his church is very important to him. 

6. While the primary decision maker accepted the claimed kidnapping had occurred she did not accept the applicant was personally involved in the negotiations with the kidnappers or that his own children were threatened in the process.  The Tribunal has considered the reasons provided for these assumptions but found the reasons given by the applicant in his submissions and oral evidence persuasive and sufficiently convincing to overcome these concerns.  The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has told the truth about the kidnapping event and accepts that he was the person who negotiated with the kidnappers and that the kidnappers threatened a similar fate for his children.

   Other claims in relation to the applicant’s employment and his wife’s and children’s experiences in Egypt

7. At the hearing the applicant provided a similar account of the problems he and his family encountered in their daily life and in the course of employment on account of them being Christian.  The Tribunal notes the primary decision makers concerns in relation to his wife’s non-attendance at hearing but as the Tribunal generally found the applicant to be a credible witness it is prepared to accept that the applicant has told the truth in respect of these claims.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have been denied a work transfer and that his religion might have played a part in that decision; that his wife was physically and sexually harassed in public and that his children were physically and psychologically harassed in public at times because they were Christians living in an area in which the majority of occupants were strict Muslims.  The applicant claims that he and his family have suffered emotionally as a result of this mistreatment and the claims are supported by medical evidence, which has been provided to the Tribunal.

   Is there a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Egypt

8. The Tribunal put it to the applicant at hearing that it accepts that kidnappings continue to be reported in Upper Egypt but suggested that despite what happened in the past to his [Relative A] it is not a given that his own children will be caught up in such circumstances if they return.  By way of response, the applicant referred to the psychological impact his [Relative A’s] kidnapping has had on his children for which they have received therapy in Australia.

9. Notwithstanding the above, and based on the applicant’s oral evidence in relation to the mistreatment they have endured as Christians, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has a genuine fear of harm by fundamentalist Muslims because of his religion and that the applicant, his wife and children have experienced harassment, threats, physical and emotional abuse for this reason in [City 1] and in their home village of [Town 1] irrespective of the kidnapping incident.   Available independent information is consistent with the applicant’s evidence to the extent that the frequency of religiously motivated violence against Coptic Christians is markedly higher in poorer areas of Upper Egypt.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant is from Upper Egypt and as noted in DFAT’s Thematic Report on Egyptian Copts[1], the majority of communal tensions and violent incidents involving Copts in recent years, fuelled in part by growing Islamist sentiment, have taken place in Upper Egypt.  Following the 2011 revolution and particularly during the Morsi administration DFAT assesses that life became considerably more difficult for Copts in Upper Egypt.  According to the UK Home Office[2], Christians in general are not at risk of persecution or ill-treatment in Egypt and the Tribunal considers this view to be supported by DFAT.  However, in areas outside the main cities, where Islamists have a strong foothold, and where there have been attacks on Christians, the UK Home Office concludes that Christians will generally be at risk, particularly as the state is generally unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. 

   [1] DFAT Thematic Report, Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015

   [2] UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance, Egypt: Christians, 14 July 2014

10. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant maintained a strong physical presence in [Town 1] during the years he lived in [City 1] and is well known in his local area by virtue of the fact he is [an occupation 1] and for his active church service. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant is outspoken and steadfast about his religious beliefs and that as a committed church [leader] he feels compelled to defend his religion from criticism and attack.  The Tribunal is persuaded that the applicant’s Christian beliefs and dedication to his church service is integral to his identity and accordingly the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that he was and is a defender of his faith and is unable to remain silent when confronted with criticisms of his faith.  The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has been the target of serious harm in the past by fundamentalist Muslims because he is Christian and because of his known church service in his locality and cannot conclude with any certainty that the chance of him facing such serious harm again if he returns to his locality is remote. 

11. The Tribunal notes the Egyptian National Police are responsible for law enforcement nationwide and various sources, including DFAT, indicate that police investigative skills remain poor and they suffer from shortfalls in training and equipment.  While the Tribunal acknowledges the security situation has reportedly changed since 2013, and that police in urban areas are likely able to provide more effective protection, DFAT nevertheless notes that the level of police presence in rural areas is generally less than in the cities and as a consequence Copts are less safe in these areas.  Whereas DFAT assesses under the Sisi Government the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances, societal discrimination may continue to impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.  The UK Home Office’s report also notes “In MS (paragraph 151(1)) the Upper Tribunal found that there was inadequate state protection for Coptic Christians”.  Other human rights commentators, such as Minority Rights Group and Human Rights Watch also agree that the Egyptian security forces have failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Copts.[3]

    [3] Minority Rights Group International 2014; Human Rights Watch 2015, World Report 2015 – Egypt, 29 January.

12. The applicant claims that when his family sought the assistance of the police in relation to his [Relative A’s] kidnapping the matter was not given adequate attention and the culprits, who were known to the police, were never apprehended.  The police reports before the Tribunal support this.  Taking into account the applicant is from Upper Egypt and given the conservative, and increasingly Islamist sentiment in Egypt in recent years, and which could reasonably be assumed is reflected in the police force, the Tribunal finds this claim to be plausible.  In light of the applicant’s personal experience and in view of the country information referenced above, which the Tribunal considers does cast doubt upon the willingness of police to protect Copts from attacks by Muslim fundamentalists, the Tribunal accepts that adequate state protection may not be available to the applicant in his locality against the harm feared there from Muslims opposed to his religious activity.

13. The Tribunal is satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will be harmed by Muslim fundamentalists if he returns to his locality because of his religion and that the harm, including severe physical abuse, would amount to serious harm. 

14. In view of the Tribunals findings in relation to the applicant’s religious beliefs and practices the Tribunal is satisfied that the harm he faces from Muslims opposed to his religion and his religious practices is not limited geographically to his locality in Upper Egypt.  The Tribunal believes the applicant will continue his church service, including spreading bible teachings to poorer Christians and continue to be outspoken about his religious convictions wherever he resides in Egypt.  The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant cannot be expected to cease his church activities or alter his religious beliefs or practices in order to avoid serious harm. 

15. The Tribunal acknowledges DFATs assessment that by and large Copts enjoy a greater level of security in urban area such as Cairo, which have large socio economically and culturally diverse populations, which generally co-exist peaceably.  The Tribunal discussed this information with the applicant at hearing and he contended that violent attacks against Copts are also being reported in urban areas.  The Tribunal notes the recently reported attacks against Coptic churches in Cairo and Alexandria[4] but is not convinced that such attacks have reached a level which can be said to be widespread or that this is reason to conclude there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm in such an attack. 

    [4] Ruth Michaelson, ‘Egypt: Isis claims responsibility for Coptic church bombings’, The Guardian, 10 April 2017; ‘Egypt mourns Coptic Church attack victims’, BBC News, 11 April 2017

16. Notwithstanding the above, in view of the applicant’s oral evidence about his earning ability as [an occupation 1] in Egypt the Tribunal finds it likely that if he and his family were to relocate to a larger urban city such as Cairo or Alexandria they would be forced to reside in a poorer suburb where it is likely he would continue his church service of spreading the gospel and administering to poorer Christians.  The Tribunal considers this would raise the applicant’s profile and he would be identified in the community as a Coptic Church leader.  The Tribunal considers this higher visibility would place him at greater risk of confrontation with Muslim community members opposed to his activities and based on available information it is apparent that small-scale disputes often escalate into violent incidents.  Country information also indicates that societal discrimination against Copts is likely to be greater in poorer areas where there is a lower rate of education. 

17. The above, together with the fact the applicant has a higher profile than the ordinary Copt, has caused the Tribunal to be prudent and to adopt a more cautious approach in this matter.  The Tribunal considers there is a chance, which is not remote, that the applicant would again become involved in controversy over his religious beliefs and practices, which could lead, in the current climate, to him being seriously harmed wherever he is located.  Despite there being signs of an improved protection environment in Cairo and Alexandria for Copts, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on the balance of opinion before it, that Coptic Christians, and more specifically the applicant, with his particular profile, can yet avail themselves of state protection against serious harm from Muslims fundamentalists. 

18. The Tribunal is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant, in his particular circumstances, would not be able, if he were to return to Egypt, to relocate to another area in Egypt such as Cairo and be safe from harm directed at him for reason of his religion.

19. For the above reasons the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Egypt due to his religion. The Tribunal is satisfied that he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

20. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the other applicants are the wife and dependent children of the applicant and are members of the same family unit as the applicant for the purposes of s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Act. It follows that the other applicants will be entitled to a protection visa provided the criterion in s.36(2)(b)(ii) and the remaining criteria for the visa are met.

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the following directions:

    (i)that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act; and

    (ii)that the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act, on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first named applicant.

    Tania Flood
    Member