1504882 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3297

1504882 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3297 (9 February 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1504882

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Rea Hearn Mackinnon

DATE:9 February 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 09 February 2016 at 4:19pm

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 on [date] December 2011 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on [date] January 2013. The Tribunal differently constituted affirmed the delegate’s decision on 5 March 2014. The Federal Circuit Court remitted that decision on [date] February 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 November 2015 and 30 November 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the [Ms A], [Ms B], [name] and [name].The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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.

10. The issue in this case is whether the applicant will be harmed in Egypt because of her Christian religion and/or her gender. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Nationality

11. The applicant claims to be a national of Egypt. She has provided her Egyptian passport and the Tribunal is satisfied that she is a national of Egypt and has assessed her claims against Egypt as her country of nationality and receiving country.

    Background

12. The applicant was born in Cairo in [year]. She is a Coptic Christian. She is not married. In Cairo she lived in [suburb] with her mother and father (deceased since 2014) and [sister], [Ms B]. She has a [sibling] residing in Australia and [number] other, married [siblings] residing in Cairo. She entered Australia on a tourist visa on [date] September 2011 ostensibly to visit her sister who was expecting her first child at that time. The applicant obtained a [tertiary qualification] in Cairo and has held a number of senior and management positions in [description] institutions in Cairo. Her most recent position was [occupation] at [a business]. She initially stated that she lost this position due to the turmoil in Egypt following the revolution in January 2011. She subsequently stated that she resigned from this position in December 2010 following sexual harassment from her supervisor.

    Coptic Christians in Egypt

13. Coptic Christians comprise about 10% of the Egyptian population and number about 8 million. Christianity is a recognised religion in Egypt and the Coptic Orthodox church is the largest denomination.[1] The new Egyptian constitution recognises Christianity as one of the three “heavenly religions” and grants Copts similar rights and freedoms as other Egyptians.[2] The Coptic community is politically and socio-economically diverse. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has reported that day-to-day life in Egypt is ‘not overly affected by sectarian differences’; and that whilst there has been harassment and intimidation of Christians by conservative Muslims, the vast majority of Christians in Egypt do not face violence in their daily lives. [3] The UK Border Agency has also reported that, whilst there are repeated instances of sectarian violence, Christians in Egypt are not in general at risk of persecution or ill treatment.[4]

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

    [2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2015, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 24 November

    [3] Ibid

    [4] UK Border Agency, 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June

14. An increase in sectarian violence in Egypt in recent years has coincided with increased Islamist sentiment (especially in poor and rural communities). Islamist groups were particularly empowered after the fall of the Mubarak government and the election of the Muslim Brotherhood backed President Morsi. There was a significant increase in sectarian violence targeting Coptic Christians in July and August 2013 coinciding with the ousting of Morsi on 3 July 2013.[5] This violence was reportedly a backlash by pro‑Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood supporters because of widespread Coptic participation in the anti Morsi protests[6]  and perceived Coptic support for Morsi’s removal.[7] The interim government cracked down on Islamists however, jailing thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters. DFAT has reported that the situation has calmed since August 2013 but cautions that ‘potential exists for localised sectarian clashes and violence’.[8]  Other reports also indicate that the number of attacks against Copts has ‘subsided’[9] from the ‘unprecedented’[10] volume of attacks in July and August 2013. Sectarian tensions between Christians and Muslims remain however[11] and incidents of violence occurred during 2014.[12]

    [5] Freedom House 2014, Freedom in the World – Egypt, 23 January; Human Rights Watch 2014, World Report 2014 – Egypt, 21 January; Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October;; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2015, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 24 November

    [6] Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 2013, Unprecedented spike in scale of sectarian violence and reprisals against Copts, 25 August

    [7] Freedom House 2014, Freedom in the World – Egypt, 23 January; Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October; Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 2013, Unprecedented spike in scale of sectarian violence and reprisals against Copts, 25 August; Hendawi, H 2013, ‘For Christians, disappointment and fears replace dreams of equality in post-Morsi Egypt’, Associated Press, 16 November, Montreal Gazette 

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

    [9] US Bureau of Diplomatic Security 2014, Egypt 2014 Crime and Safety Report, 18 March

    [10] Human Rights Watch 2014, World Report 2014 – Egypt, 21 January; Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October

    [11] Kirkpatrick, D 2014, ‘Vow to Freedom of Religion Goes Unkept in Egypt’, New York Times, 25 April Saleh, S 2014, ‘Egypt’s Minya Province flashpoint for Muslim-Christian Violence’, Al Monitor, 25 April; Mikhail, A 2014, Church Shells and Empty Promises, 30 September, Atlantic Council

    [12] US Bureau of Diplomatic Security 2014, Egypt 2014 Crime and Safety Report, 18 March Human Rights Watch 2015, World Report 2015 – Egypt, 29 January

15. Salafi groups have become more prominent in Egypt since the revolution.[13]  Salafism seeks to restore Islamic faith and practice to that which existed at the time of the Prophet Mohammed and the early generations of his followers (known as Salaf, or forefathers)[14] and maintain that the only valid system of rule for Muslims is based on Sharia law.[15] Salafism is not a unified or homogenous movement and[16] and comprises “a diffuse agglomeration of neighbourhood preachers, societal groups and, very recently, political parties, none of which are necessarily united in ideology”.[17]

    [13] Bakr, A, 2012, ‘Egypt’s Salafists: A closer look’, Ahram Online, 15 October

    [14] Brown, J 2011, Salafis and Sufis in Egypt, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3 December

    [15] Ibid

    [16] Blanchard, CM 2008, The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya, CRS Report for Congress, 24 January; Bakr, A 2012, ‘Egypt’s Salafists: A closer look’, Ahram Online, 15 October

    [17] Bokhari, K 2012, Salafism and Arab Democratization, Stratfor, 2 October

16. Salafis have been accused of stirring anti-Christian sentiment in Egypt[18] and of being involved in sectarian incidents and attacks in which they have threatened, harassed and assaulted Christians.[19]  However, Salafi leaders have also voiced strong opposition to religious violence.

    [18] Husain, E 2011, ‘Husain: The rise of intolerant Salafists in Egypt’, CNN, 16 November

    [19] Saleh, Y 2012, ‘In Egypt streets, Islamists throw weight around’, Reuters, 7 November ‘Women assault, cut hair of Christian woman on metro’ 2012, Egypt Independent, 11 November ‘Egypt Salafists ordered off Coptic church land: report’ 2012, Agence France‑Presse, 8 November, Google news

    Claims

17. The applicant has made detailed claims set out in written statements dated [in] November 2011, [in] May 2013, [in] December 2013, [in] January 2014 and [in] October 2015; in an interview with the delegate on [date] July 2012; at the previous Tribunal hearing on 27 November 2013 and in submissions dated [in] November 2013, [in] December 2013, [in] January 2014, [in] October 2015 and [in] October 2015. She has also submitted various statements by witnesses attesting to various aspects of her evidence not all of which are relevant to her actual claims. The previous Tribunal set out the applicant’s evidence and circumstances in detail in its reasons for decision dated 5 March 2014 (RRT: 1301281).

18. The applicant’s claims may be characterised as claims relating to harm from a particular neighbour and his friends and claims more generally relating to her Christian religion and gender. She claims that:

    ·A Salafi neighbour called [Mr C] proposed to her and she refused the proposal and now [Mr C]’s friend intends to kidnap her and force her to marry him (the friend) and convert her to Islam so that [Mr C] may then marry her without breaching the direction in the Quran not to harm one’s neighbour;

    ·She has suffered sexual harassment in Egypt and will be vulnerable to ongoing sexual harassment from Salafis and members of the Muslim Brotherhood as a single Coptic Christian woman; that she has no male protection now that her father has died; and that the police will not assist her because of her religion; and

    ·The Salafis are aligned to other extremist groups such as ISIS and she will be harmed in terrorist attacks being perpetrated in Egypt by such extremist groups.

19. The applicant has provided the following timeline for relevant events in Egypt:

    2000: obtained her [tertiary qualification];
    December 2010: resigned from her employment;
    January 2011: undertook training with [name];
    January 2011-March 2011: [business] in Egypt closed due to the revolution;
    [Date] May 2011: assaulted by a taxi driver;
    End of May 2011: received a marriage proposal from a neighbour via his mother;
    Mid-June 2011: threatened with forced marriage by the neighbours friend
    End of June 2011: saw bearded men including the neighbour’s friend at the end of her street staring at her in a menacing way whilst on her way to church;
    Towards the end of June: spoke to her [sibling] about visiting Australia;
    Early to mid-July: stayed with her married [sibling] in Cairo whilst she prepared her tourist visa application as her [sibling] lives close to the Australian Embassy;
    [Date] July 2011: applied for a tourist visa;
    [Date] July 2011-[Date] August 2011: stayed in a [community] in Alexandria;
    [Date] August 2011: left Egypt;
    January 2013: harassment/assault of sister, [Ms B], by neighbour’s friend
    [in] August 2013: Friday of Anger protests in Cairo

20. The applicant’s claims and the relevant evidence are summarised below:

    Harm from neighbour and his friends

    Marriage proposal

21. The applicant claims that, in about May 2011, [Mr C]’s mother spoke to her mother and proposed that the applicant marry [Mr C. The applicant claims that [Mr C] is a Salafi leader. She claims that, as the Quran instructs Muslims to be good to their neighbours, [Mr C] cannot force her into marriage or force her to convert to Islam.

22. The applicant has given inconsistent evidence about her contact with [Mr C] and his family prior to the claimed proposal.

23. In her first statement (dated [in] November 2011), she said that [Mr C]’s mother approached her mother and expressed [Mr C]’s desire to marry her and that her mother lied and said the applicant was engaged to someone else as she could never abandon her faith and marry a Muslim man. [Mr C]’s mother did not believe her mother and monitored the applicant’s movements and followed her. 

24. The applicant told the delegate that [Mr C]’s mother made the proposal because the two families were ‘like a family’; that [Mr C]’s family considered her to be a decent girl; and that [MrC]’s mother said she could retain her religion. There was discussion between the applicant and the previous Tribunal about this evidence. The applicant has provided a transcript of her evidence to the delegate to this Tribunal. According to the transcript, she told the delegate in Arabic:

    His mum met my mum and said that since [Mr C] already knows her from university and as we are [both sides] like a family, in fact her very words were “the decent males and females are a good match to each other [marry]” and as your daughter is very decent and we know her well, there is no issue with her remaining with her faith [religion] but we want her hand in marriage to [Mr C]

    She then told the delegate in English:

    Ok … so umm my mom the neighbour his mom had met my mom and because we’ve been neighbours so we were like families ah she said to my mom you know the the you’d like good people sort of like good match for each other so I’m happy to take cause were like families so I’m happy to take your daughter as a wife for my son but she can keep her religion.

    The applicant also told the delegate that, after her mother turned down the proposal, she (the applicant) and [Mr C] did not speak to each other except to exchange greetings.

25. In subsequent evidence, the applicant claimed that [Mr C] was the leader of a Salafi group. She told the previous Tribunal that she had stopped speaking to [Mr C] and his family in about 2009 when [Mr C] started wearing a white robe and his mother started wearing a niqab. She stated that [Mr C] did not approach her directly about the marriage because, as the leader of a Salafi group, he considers women to be slaves and it is degrading for him to speak to a woman. She stated that, after her mother turned down the proposal, [Mr C]’s mother swore at them and put rubbish on their doorstep.

26. In a statutory declaration dated [in] August 2015, sworn whilst she was in Australia on a tourist visa (discussed further below), the applicant’s mother, [Ms A], stated that her family and [Mr C]’s family were neighbours but not friends and that the relationship started to deteriorate in 2009 when [Mr C]’s family became Salafi. She stated that Salafis can earn credit in heaven if they convert a Christian to Islam (a claim the applicant has also made); and that a Christian who marries a Muslim automatically converts to Islam. [Ms A] stated that, when she refused the proposal, [Mr C]’s mother said. “We will take her (the applicant) whatever you say”.

27. [Ms A] told the Tribunal that she does not know [Mr C]’s full name or his mother’s name or their address (other than that they live opposite her). She said she knows [Mr C]’s mother as a neighbour but has never visited her home and she knows [Mr C] by sight. The Tribunal asked [Ms A] twice why [Mr C]’s mother thought the applicant would be a good wife for [Mr C], however, [Ms A] did not answer the question. She said that the marriage proposal was made in October 2010.

28. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant received a marriage proposal from the mother of a neighbour called [Mr C]. The Tribunal notes the inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence and her mother’s evidence as to when this proposal was made but accepts that it may have been made in 2011.

29. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C] was a Salafi or the leader of a Salafi group for the following reasons. Firstly, the applicant’s evidence that the two families were like family and that [Mr C]’s family considered the applicant to be a decent girl is inconsistent with her subsequent evidence that her family had not spoken to [Mr C]’s family since 2009 when he became a Salafi. Secondly, the Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C] would have proposed to the applicant if he was a Salafi or a Salafi leader. Salafis are dedicated to the return to the original ways of Islam by emulating the practices of the Prophet Mohammad and his companions;[20] and maintain that the only valid system of rule for Muslims is based on Sharia law.[21] As discussed with the applicant, Salafis reportedly believe in ‘the need to be loyal only to Muslims’, and to ‘ensure only minimal/necessary interaction with non-Muslims’.[22] The country information does not indicate that Salafis believe they earn credit in heaven for converting Christians to Islam. Having regard to this information, the Tribunal does not accept that a Salafi or a Salafi leader would have sought to marry a Christian woman or would have offered, via his mother, to allow her to retain her Christian religion.

    [20] Blanchard, CM 2008, The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya, CRS Report for Congress, 24 January; DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report Egypt, 24 November 2015

    [21] Ibid

    [22] Husain, E 2011, Why Egypt’s Salafis are not the Amish, Council on Foreign Relations, 1 December

1. Further, [Ms B]’s evidence that [Mr C]’s [siblings] visited her after her father died in 2014 (set out below) is contrary to the applicant’s evidence that her family has not spoken to [Mr C]’s family since 2009 and further discredits the applicant’s claim that [Mr C] is a Salafi leader or that [Mr C] or his friends had threatened to kill her or force her to marry [Mr C]’s friend. 

   [Mr C]’s friend – forced marriage

2. In her first written statement, the applicant  said that shortly after the proposal from [Mr C]’s mother, she noticed a Muslim man following her as she was doing her grocery shopping and that this man told her, “you’ll marry me whether you like it or not and I’ll come in two days to get you”. This incident caused her to feel afraid and depressed. She went to a psychiatrist who prescribed antidepressants and advised her to live somewhere else. She then fled to a [community] in Alexandria.

3. In subsequent evidence, the applicant stated that the man who followed and threatened her is [Mr C]’s friend; that he has subsequently threatened her; and that he has bought a house in her street (evidence given to the previous Tribunal but not repeated elsewhere).  She told the previous Tribunal that [Mr C]’s friend wanted to forcibly marry her and convert her to Islam; that [Mr C], as a Salafi leader, would then direct his friend to divorce her; and that [Mr C] would then marry her.

4. In her statement dated [in] December 2013, the applicant stated that [Mr C] cannot forcibly marry her himself because, under Sharia law, he has to have good relations with his neighbours within seven doors of his property.[23] However, if she has already been forced into marriage and to convert to Islam, [Mr C] won’t be harming her by subsequently marrying her.

   [23] In submissions dated [in] December 2013, the applicant’s representative referred to passages from the Quran which instructs Muslims to do good to neighbours.

5. The applicant provided a statutory declaration by [name], a friend in Australia, dated [in] February 2013 in which [name] states that she visited the applicant’s mother in Egypt in November 2012; that the applicant’s mother told her that [Mr C] sent a friend from the Salafi group to marry the applicant; that the friend watched the applicant every day; that [Mr C]’s mother still asks about the applicant; and that [Mr C]’s friend stopped the applicant’s sister [Ms B] and told her he would get the applicant. [Ms B] also told the Tribunal that [Mr C] is a Salafist and that [Mr C] and his friend wanted to marry the applicant.

6. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C] is a Salafi or Salafi leader for the reasons set out above. It therefore does not accept that [Mr C]’s friend intended to force the applicant into a marriage so that [Mr C] could then marry her. Further, the Tribunal finds the claim to be implausible. As discussed with the applicant, Egyptian law allows Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women[24] and marriage between a Muslim man and a Christian woman does not of itself result in an automatic or forced conversion of the woman to Islam (which is consistent with [Mr C]’s mother’s offer that the applicant could retain her Christian faith). Further, the claim that [Mr C] would not be offending the instruction in the Quran to be good to neighbours by marrying the applicant after his friend had forced her into a marriage in order to convert her to Islam is illogical as well as implausible and the Tribunal does not accept it.

   [24] US State Department 2011, ‘Section II. Status of Government Respect for Religious Freedom’ in International Religious Freedom Report for 2010 (covering July - December 2010), 13 September; Embassy of the United States – Cairo, Egypt (undated), ‘Marriage in Egypt’; DIAC Country Information Service 2010, Country Information Report No.10/69 – Egypt: Interfaith/Nationality Marriage, (sourced from DFAT advice of 25 November 2010), 25 November

7. The Tribunal therefore does not accept that [Mr C]’s friend threatened the applicant when she was shopping by telling her she would marry him whether she liked it or not or that [Mr C]’s friend watched the applicant every day or has asked about the applicant  or told [Ms B] that he would get the applicant.

   Other threats and harm from [Mr C], his mother and his friends

8. In her first written statement dated [in] November 2011, the applicant said that one day when she left her house for church she was confronted by a group of bearded men who stared at her in a menacing way. She was afraid to continue and returned home. This claim was made in the context of a deteriorating situation for Christian women after the revolution.

9. In her written statement dated [in] August 2014, the applicant’s mother, [Ms A], stated that after the marriage proposal, [Mr C]’s friends caused problems for the applicant whenever she left the house. They threatened to kidnap her and told her “you cannot escape from us, no matter what your family says, you are my wife, whether you say yes or no”. She stated that, one day when the applicant was going to church in a taxi, she saw [Mr C]’s friends at the end of the street and she was suspicious they would kidnap her so she returned home; that the priest then told the applicant to stay at home as two girls were missing from the parish; and that the priest arranged for the applicant to stay in a [community] in Alexandria and provided a letter of introduction.

10. The Tribunal accepts that applicant may have been afraid of some bearded Muslim men in the street when going to church in early 2011 which caused her to return home because she was fearful for her safety. The Tribunal does not accept that these bearded men were [Mr C] and his friends. The applicant did not say that these men were [Mr C] and his friends in her initial statement when she described the incident which leads the Tribunal to the view that the subsequent evidence that these men were [Mr C] and his friends is an embellishment. The Tribunal has some doubts that the applicant rang the priest when she returned home or that the priest told her to stay at home because two girls had been kidnapped or that the priest then provided a letter for her to go to a [community] as [Ms A] told the Tribunal at the hearing that this happened to [Ms B] (discussed below) leading the Tribunal to the view that this evidence may be fabricated. However, the Tribunal notes that the incident with the bearded men occurred soon after the revolution when there was a high level of insecurity and a level of fear amongst the Coptic community and accepts that the applicant may have been fearful and told the priest who may have assisted her to stay in a [community] for a period of time. The Tribunal discusses the current situation for Coptic Christians below.

11. In her written statement dated [in] May 2013, the applicant said that her mother told her in January 2013 that [Mr C]’s friends had been looking for her and had threatened to harm her; and that one friend had asked her sister [Ms B], “where is my future wife”, abused [Ms B] for not wearing a veil and rode his motorbike at [Ms B] causing her to fall and break her [body part].

12. In her written statement of [date] August 2014, [Ms A] also stated that [Mr C]’s friends threw stones at [Ms A]’s balcony and used obscene language. [Ms A] stated that she spoke to the priest who would normally speak to the local Imam to mediate an outcome but the priest told her that [Mr C]’s family would not listen. [Ms A] told the Tribunal at the hearing that they could not complain to the security people (police) because the security people told them to solve it on a friendly level and because the police station had been attacked (during the revolution). She stated that [Mr C]’s friends referred to the applicant as “my future wife” and she described the incident with [Ms B]. [Ms A] told the Tribunal at the hearing that [Mr C] and his friends began harassing [Ms B] when they found out that the applicant is in Australia. When asked how they found out that the applicant is in Australia, she said that they may have been spying or someone may have told them or they may have found out through the internet. [Ms A] told the Tribunal that [Mr C] and his friends stopped [Ms B] once and asked her where the applicant is and said they would get her (the applicant) and one kept harassing [Ms B] with a motorbike until she fell over and broke her [body part].

13. [Ms B] told the Tribunal that she met [Mr C]’s friend on the street in January 2013. He said, “Where is my wife?” and told [Ms B] to cover her hair. When she came out of the supermarket, he rode his motorbike at her, knocked her over and she broke her [body part]. When asked if she had any prior contact with this person, [Ms B] said that he was at [Mr C]’s place a lot and she used to see him a lot. When asked if she had any prior problems with him, she said that “they verbally harassed us and threw rubbish at us and wanted to find out where [the applicant] was”.

14. In her written statement, [Ms A] also stated that [Mr C]’s friends have blamed [Ms B] for [Mr C]’s brother’s marital problems. She told the Tribunal at the hearing that, in November 2014, [Mr C]’s brother’s wife accused [Ms B] of being married to [Mr C]’s brother in an informal (unregistered) marriage and of going to their house wearing a singlet. The priest spoke to [Mr C]’s family and also involved sheiks to try to resolve the situation however they thought it could become a religious problem between the families so the priest suggested that [Ms A] and [Ms B] go and stay with one of [Ms A]’s other [children] for a while. After [Ms A] and [Ms B] returned home, [Ms B] had some verbal problems and some rubbish was left at the house but this has reduced because the priest has now taken [Ms B] to the [community] for a while. When asked why the priest has taken [Ms B] to a [religious community], [Ms A] said that [Ms B] was harassed by Salafis at the mosque at the end of the street. She got scared and went home and the priest came and told her that two girls had been kidnapped and to stay home and gave her a letter to go to the [religious community].

15. When asked if she has considered moving, [Ms A] told the Tribunal that she had tried to sell her house after her husband died but she didn’t get a good enough price because of the economic situation in Egypt and the priest told her to wait for a while.

16. [Ms B] told the Tribunal that, in November 2014, [Ms D], the wife of [Mr C]’s brother, [Mr E], went to the church and complained that [Ms B] had been informally married to [Mr E] for four years. [Ms B] claims that [MsD]’s family belong to the Muslim Brotherhood. When asked why [Ms D] would accuse her, she stated that [Mr C]’s [number] [siblings] used to visit her after her father died and [Ms D] had a problem with [Mr E] and wanted to divorce him and used the opportunity to accuse [Ms B]. [Ms B] told the Tribunal that the police spoke to her after the complaint and told her to go and stay with her maternal uncle. The situation escalated after her mother returned to Egypt from Australia in September 2015 because [Ms D]’s father wanted to turn the matter into a security issue in order to obtain a divorce for [Ms D]. When asked how the situation had escalated, [Ms B] said that [Ms D] and her father told the priest that [Ms B] was asking [Mr E] to divorce [Ms D; and asked the priest to get [Ms B] and her mother out of their house. When the Tribunal suggested that [Ms D] appears to be trying to protect her marriage not end it, [Ms B] said that [Ms D]’s aim is to create a problem for [Ms B] and that she may be helping her husband to make problems for [the applicant]. She stated that, because of the escalation, she has been staying in a [religious community] for about three months and comes and goes between home and the [religious community].

17. When asked if she has had any problems with [Mr C], [Ms B] said that she has had problems with words – [Mr C] and his friends have tried to find out [the applicant]’s whereabouts. When asked if she has had any problems with [Mr C]’s friend since the January 2013 incident, she said, “probably not but when he stands at the door, he swears at us as Christians”. When asked if her mother has had any problems with [Mr C] and her friends when she is at the [religious community], she said that [Mr C]’s mother harasses her mother on the balcony by spitting on her, swearing at her and calling her names. When asked if she is comfortable leaving her mother alone (she also stated that her mother has [medical condition]), she said that her maternal aunt, her sister and the priest check on her mother. When asked if she and her mother have considered moving, she said that they thought about it a month ago but the priest said it is not a solution as “they could still follow you and cause problems”. When the Tribunal noted that [Ms A] told the Tribunal she had considered selling the house but could not get a good price, [Ms B] stated that someone had been interested in the house three days ago and a month ago but not at a good price.

18. The Tribunal accepts that there may have been some tension between the families when the applicant refused [Mr C]’s proposal but considers that any such tension has been greatly exaggerated. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that she and [Mr C] continued to exchange greetings after the refusal and does not accept that any tension between the families involved threats to kill or kidnap the applicant or other serious or significant harm. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C]’s mother verbally abused the applicant’s mother or left rubbish at their door after the proposal was refused or that [Mr C]’s mother watched the applicant or monitored her. [Ms B]’s evidence that [Mr C]’s [siblings] visited her after her father died indicates a relatively cordial relationship between the families.

19. As stated above, the Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C]’s friend intended to force the applicant to marry him. The Tribunal therefore does not accept that [Mr C]’s friend harassed [Ms B] in January 2013, referred to the applicant as “my future wife” or rode his motorbike at [Ms B] causing her to fall and break her [body part].  The applicant has not provided any medical evidence in relation to this claim. Nor has she or other witnesses provided any evidence that the police or the priest were informed which the Tribunal expects would have occurred if [Ms B] had suffered a serious injury as claimed. 

20. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C] and his friend were looking for the applicant or harassed [Ms B] when they found out the applicant is in Australia or threatened to kidnap the applicant or verbally harassed the applicant’s family or threw stones or rubbish at their balcony or front door because the applicant refused the marriage proposal.

21. The evidence provided by [Ms A] and [Ms B] in relation to [Ms B] and [Mr C]’s brother describes a very different and more complicated relationship between the families than the one the applicant has presented. The allegation that [Ms B] has been involved with [Mr C]’s brother for four years provides an alternative basis for tension between the families, for [Mr C]’s mother to verbally abuse the applicant’s mother or put rubbish on the doorstep and for verbal or physical harassment of [Ms B].

22. The Tribunal accepts that there may have been some harassment of [Ms B] and [Ms A] arising from this allegation. The Tribunal does not accept that the allegations about [Ms B] were intended to cause problems for the applicant as [Ms B] initially said that [Mr C]’s sister-in-law made the allegations to obtain a divorce. The Tribunal accepts [Ms A]’s evidence that the harassment has now reduced since the priest took [Ms B] to the [religious community] to reduce tensions. The evidence indicates that the police may have been involved and told the families to sort out the problem on a friendly level and that the priest and Muslim religious leaders have intervened to reduce tensions.

23. The Tribunal notes that [Ms A] and [Ms B] have not felt sufficiently concerned for their safety to move away from [Mr C]’s family. The Tribunal does not accept that [Ms A] and [Ms B] have remained in their home because the priest told them [Mr C] and his friends would find them anywhere given that Cairo is a large, sprawling city of over 12 million people.[25] Further, the evidence that [Ms A] is seeking to sell her apartment is inconsistent with the claim that they cannot live safely anywhere else. 

    [25] ‘Cairo population 2015’, worldpopulationreview.com

24. The Tribunal finds that [Ms A]’s evidence set out in paragraph 40 about stone throwing and obscene language, the involvement of the priest and the police telling them to solve it on a friendly level refers to events arising after the allegation concerning [Ms B] not the applicant’s refusal of the marriage proposal.

25. The Tribunal does not accept that the priest took [Ms B] to the [religious community] because she was harassed by Salafis at the end of the street or the priest told [Ms B] to stay at home because two Coptic girls had been kidnapped and wrote a letter to enable her to stay in a [religious community]. This evidence, which mirrors other evidence above regarding the applicant, is inconsistent with the other evidence above about why the priest took [Ms B] to a [religious community].

26. At the hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that [Ms A] has [medical condition] when [Ms A] provided evidence that was inconsistent with other evidence before the Tribunal and [Ms B] also told the Tribunal that her mother has [medical condition]. The applicant has not provided any medical evidence in support of this claim. The Tribunal accepts that [Ms A] may have been confused about some aspects of her evidence but does not accept that she has [medical condition] as the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would have called her mother as a witness; or that [Ms B] would leave her mother alone in her home; or that her mother would have been able to travel to Australia for a visit earlier in 2015 if she has [medical condition].
    
    Friday of Anger

27. In a statement dated [in] January 2014, the applicant referred to a protest which took place in Cairo on 16 August 2013 (“Friday of Anger”) which she stated that [Ms B] filmed on her phone. She stated that in the film, her sister, her mother and her neighbour can be heard saying, “They are going to kill us”. She stated that, after the film ends, Salafis including [Mr C]’s friend banged on their door with a stick and threw rocks onto their balcony. These people had Molotov cocktails and yelled, “Get out this is our country; we are going to kill you” and that [Ms B], her mother and the neighbour hid. Afterwards, they found a red cross marked on their door and on neighbour’s doors. The applicant provided a copy of the film to the previous Tribunal. The previous Tribunal watched the film and referred to it in its decision. The Tribunal has not been able to view the film as is not with the file and the applicant no longer has a copy.

28. [Ms B] told the Tribunal that Friday of Anger was the first time a demonstration had gone down their street. She said that the protesters banged on their door with sticks and called out ‘Infidels, this is a Muslim country, we will get you out of here’, threw Molotov cocktails on the balcony and put a red cross on the door. When asked who did this, [Ms B] said it was people with beards unknown to her who were in the demonstration.

29. The Tribunal accepts that a protest may have moved down the applicant’s street on Friday of Anger. Thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters marched through the streets of Cairo on that day to protest against the military crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood supporters which had killed hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.[26] Groups opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood called for counter demonstrations on the day and for people to protect their neighbourhoods and churches because some Islamists had accused the Coptic Church of backing Morsi’s overthrow. [27]  More than 80 protesters were killed on Friday of Anger in clashes between protesters and security forces.

    [26] Alberici, E, ‘Day of Anger follows crackdown on Cairo protesters’, ABC, 16 August 2013

    [27] ‘Egypt crisis: Dozens dead in Egypt day of anger’, BBC News, 17 August 2013

1. The Tribunal accepts that Friday of Anger protesters may have thrown rocks and molotov cocktails and painted a red cross on homes including the applicant’s home. The Tribunal does not accept that the protesters specifically targeted the applicant’s home as [suburb] is a Christian area and other houses were also attacked. The Tribunal accepts that the protest may have frightened the applicant’s mother and sister. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C]’s friend was a Salafi or had targeted the applicant or her family arising from the applicant’s refusal of the marriage proposal and does not accept that he threw sticks or Molotov cocktails or made threats or painted a red cross on the door of the applicant’s home on Friday of Anger. The current situation for Christians in Egypt is discussed further below.

   Other harm due to religion, gender and status

   Sexual harassment and discrimination

2. The applicant claims that she is at risk of harm in Egypt as a young, single Christian woman with no male protection (now that her father is deceased). She claims that she has been subjected to verbal harassment by taxi drivers and by men on public transport; to have been sexually harassed at work; and to have been physically assaulted by a taxi driver in May 2011. She claims that the situation has deteriorated since the revolution, Salafi men are prominent on the streets and that she is vulnerable to being kidnapped or raped.

3. The applicant has provided inconsistent evidence about having been sexually harassed at work. In her first written statement, she said that she was a highly respected and valued employee, sought after for senior roles and that, “within the confines of my workplace, I was fortunate to have been relatively well guarded against religious and sexual harassment. I felt that I was respected and valued, regardless of the fact that I was female and Coptic” and that her career was snatched away from her by the revolution of January 2011. In subsequent evidence, she claims that she resigned from her position at [her work place] in December 2010 because she was sexually harassed by her supervisor. She claims that she reported the harassment to her manager who blamed her for being “so hot” and did not act against her supervisor.

4. The applicant has stated that she did not mention the claimed sexual harassment in her first written statement because her former representative told her not to include anything that occurred before the revolution. The Tribunal notes however that the applicant did not merely not mention the claimed harassment in her first statement, she said that she had been “well-guarded against religious and sexual harassment” because of her particular employment status. Having regard to this evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant resigned from her employment in December 2010 because of sexual harassment.

5. The applicant has claimed to have been subject to more generalised harassment. She said in her first written statement, “I had been well aware of the harassment that Coptic women face every day on the street. This was not new knowledge to me. I too was often subject to snickering men throwing vulgar remarks to me as I walked the streets. This is an ordinary occurrence for Christian girls in Egypt”. 

6. DFAT has noted that Coptic women have reported harassment and discrimination after being identified as Copts and that such incidents are more likely to occur in rural or poorer areas. DFAT also notes that sexual harassment is a frequent occurrence for all women in Egypt across the socio-economic spectrum with 93% of women reporting some experience of sexual harassment and 91.5% reporting some form of unwanted physical contact. DFAT refers to a May 2013 study by UN Women which found that such harassment occurred regardless of a woman’s physical appearance, conduct or manner of dress and that most women did not report the harassment to family or police. Sexual harassment was criminalised in June 2014 and now attracts a five year penalty under the Egyptian Penal Code. In April 2015, a man was jailed for five years for sexually harassing a woman on public transport but such convictions remain the exception rather than the norm.[28]

   [28] DFAT, 2015, DFAT Country Information Report Egypt, 24 November

7. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have been subject to snickering and vulgar remarks. The country information indicates that such harassment is experienced by most women in Egypt regardless of their religion. The Tribunal accepts that being subject to snickering and vulgar remarks may be unpleasant or intimidating but does not accept that it amounts to serious harm or significant harm.  The Tribunal also notes that Egyptian law now provides a remedy for such treatment.

8. The Tribunal accepts that women in Egypt are subject to a level of discrimination and that the applicant may have been subjected to some discrimination. The Tribunal notes however that the applicant achieved a tertiary degree and held senior managerial positions in [description] institutions indicating that any discrimination she suffered did not prevent her from obtaining an education and pursuing a career.  The Tribunal does not accept that the suffered discrimination in Egypt that amounted to serious or significant harm.

9. The applicant claims to have been physically assaulted by a taxi driver in May 2011. She told the previous Tribunal that she questioned the driver about the route he was taking; he became angry with her, called her an infidel, told her not to tell him how to drive or where to go and locked the doors of the taxi. She started screaming. He tried to grab her. She jumped out of the taxi and injured [herself]. He stopped the taxi and came towards her. She kicked him between the legs and ran away. She initially stated that she dislocated her [body part[in this incident but later indicated that she bruised her[body part]. The Tribunal considers that the applicant may have exaggerated some aspects of the claimed incident but accepts that she had an altercation with a taxi driver which became physical and which frightened her. The Tribunal is satisfied that the assault was random and not a deliberate targeting of the applicant and that it was an isolated incident. The Tribunal notes that this incident occurred soon after the revolution when there was a high level of instability. The applicant has not claimed to have suffered any other physical assault on the streets or in taxis or on public transport in Egypt.

   Kidnapping

10. The applicant claims she is at risk of being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam as a young Christian woman and has provided information about the kidnapping and forced conversion of Christian women. Such kidnappings have been reported since 2011, particularly in Upper Egypt, and the number of reported incidents increased after the revolution when there was a general deterioration in law and order.[29]  One source has reported that more than 550 Coptic schoolgirls were kidnapped between January 2011 and March 2014[30] but this number is at odds with other reports of more than 20 Christians (men and women) kidnapped between August 2013 and November 2014 and more than 100 since the revolution.[31]  DFAT has reported that 40 Christians (men and women) were kidnapped between 14 August 2013 and January 2014, mostly in Upper Egypt.[32]  The motives for the kidnappings are varied and include ransom.[33] There are reports of Christian women and girls being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry their abductors, however, these reports include cases where young Christian girls have eloped with their Muslim partners and their families have reported the elopement as a kidnapping to avoid social repercussions.[34] 

    [29] Ibid; Gilbert, L 2014, Will Egypt’s New President Sisi #BringBackOurCopticGirls?, 19 June, Hudson Institute “Other than Muslim Brotherhood crackdown, El-Sisi’s plan for Egypt remains a mystery”, JNS.org, 23 May 2014; US Copts Association 2014, Why Egypt’s Christian Families are Paying Ransoms, 8 January Hendawi, H 2013, ‘For Christians, disappointment and fears replace dreams of equality in post-Morsi Egypt’, Associated Press, 16 November, Montreal Gazette

    [30] Murashko, A 2014, ‘More than 550 Coptic Christian Schoolgirls in Egypt Kidnapped since 2011’, The Christian Post, 18 June

    [31] Christian Solidarity International 2014, Genocide Alert: The Arab Republic of Egypt, September

    [32] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts, 28 January

    [33] Ibid; US Department of State 2014, 2013 Report on International Religious Freedom – Egypt, 28 July

    [34] Gilbert, L 2014, ‘Will Egypt’s New President Sisi #BringBackOurCopticGirls?’, The Huffington Post, 19 June US Copts Association 2014, Why Egypt’s Christian Families are Paying Ransoms, 8 January

11. The Tribunal accepts that Christians, including young women, have been kidnapped in Egypt for a range of reasons including possibly forced conversion. The Tribunal has had regard to the country information which indicates that the number of kidnappings is relatively small in comparison to the size of the Christian population (8 or 9 million) and that most of the kidnappings have occurred in Upper Egypt. The Tribunal notes that the applicant is a professional woman living in Cairo and finds that the chance or risk she will be kidnapped for forced conversion or for ransom to be remote. 

12. The applicant claims to be more vulnerable to harm now as a young Coptic female without male protection since the death of her father. The Tribunal noted that the applicant, whilst still relatively young, is a [age] professional woman who has participated in the workforce at a relatively senior level for a number of years. The Tribunal discussed recent advice from DFAT that women participate in all areas of Egyptian society and that Coptic woman are generally able to work and travel unaccompanied in most areas of Egypt and that instances of Coptic woman being harassed or discriminated against because of their religion is more likely to occur in rural and poorer areas.[35] Having regard to the country information above and the applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that she faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm arising from her status as a young single Christian female without male protection.

    Harm from Salafi groups and the Muslim Brotherhood

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

13. The applicant claims to fear harm from Salafi groups and the Muslim Brotherhood because of her Christian religion.

14. As stated above, an increase in sectarian violence in Egypt in recent years has coincided with increased Islamist sentiment (especially in poor and rural communities). Islamist groups were particularly empowered after the fall of the Mubarak government and the election of the Muslim Brotherhood backed President Morsi. There was a significant increase in sectarian violence targeting Coptic Christians in July and August 2013 coinciding with the ousting of Morsi on 3 July 2013[36] in retaliation for widespread Coptic participation in the anti Morsi protests.[37]  According to an Egyptian government report into the anti-Copt violence, 52 churches were destroyed, 12 were damaged, numerous Copt owned properties were damaged and 29 people died in communal violence related killings.[38]

    [36] Freedom House 2014, Freedom in the World – Egypt, 23 January; Human Rights Watch 2014, World Report 2014 – Egypt, 21 January; Amnesty International 2013, How long are we going to live in this injustice? Egypt’s Christians caught between sectarian attacks and state inaction, October; Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 2013, Unprecedented spike in scale of sectarian violence and reprisals against Copts, 25 August; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January

    [37] Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights 2013, Unprecedented spike in scale of sectarian violence and reprisals against Copts, 25 August

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

15. The interim government cracked down on the Islamists however, jailing thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters, and imposing a state of emergency and curfew across Egypt. The situation has calmed since then.  DFAT has noted a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks on Copts under the Sisi administration with the majority of communal attacks in recent years taking place in Upper Egypt which has a large Coptic community, high concentration of Islamists, high rate of poverty and low rate of education.

16. The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organisation and membership may incur a penalty of up to five years in prison. Members and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood have been arrested and charged and Morsi has been sentenced to death. Persons actively engaged with the Muslim Brotherhood are liable to be arrested and prosecuted.[39]

    [39] DFAT, 2015, DFAT Country Information Report Egypt, 24 November

17. There are an estimated five to six million Salafis in Egypt. Salafism is a “fundamentalist but not necessarily extremist movement dedicated to a return to the original ways of Islam”. Salafists can be divided into a politically active stream and an inactive or ‘Quietest’ stream which eschews any political activity and believes in improvement through spiritual struggle. There is a wide range of political outlook within the Salafi movement. Al-Nour, the largest Salafi political party supported the military intervention in 2013 and backed Sisi in the 2014 election. Smaller Salafi parties which were sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood have been shut down by the government.[40]  As stated above, some Salafi leaders have strongly opposed religious violence.

    [40] Ibid

18. DFAT has noted that “day to day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overly affected by communal tensions. Most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise  together with little regard to each other’s religious identity however small scale disputes (such as neighbourhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas”. DFAT 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”. DFAT notes that Copts have expressed strong support for Sisi and that Sisi went to the Christmas Eve mass at the Coptic Cathedral in Cairo, the first such visit by an Egyptian leader, and called on Egyptians to rise above religious differences. [41]

    [41] Ibid

19. Having regard to the country information above regarding the crackdown on Islamic extremism and the reduction in violence, the Tribunal finds that, whilst tensions and the potential for sectarian violence continue to exist, overall the situation for Coptic Christians has improved since the violence of August 2013 and is relatively secure.

20. The applicant and her mother both gave evidence to the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) on 15 September 2014 in relation to [Ms A]’s tourist visa application. The applicant told the MRT that the security issues were around the presidential palace and square and not in her mother’s area. [Ms A] told the MRT that that she had been scared at the time of the Muslim Brotherhood but now churches are being built, including one in her area, and there is no trouble. The Tribunal notes that this evidence is consistent with the Tribunal’s view that the situation for Christians has calmed since 2013.  

21. Having regard to the country information above and the fact that the applicant is a middle class woman from Cairo the Tribunal does not accept that she faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from Islamic extremists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood or the Salafist movement in Egypt. 

    Harm from terrorists

22. The applicant claims that Salafis in Egypt are linked to Islamic State (IS) which is more dangerous that the Muslim Brotherhood. She claims that the Salafis have the same mentality as IS and aim to remove Christians from Egypt. She conceded that President El-Sisi may be trying to calm the situation but claims that terrorist attacks are continuing to occur in Egypt.

23. The Tribunal accepts that there is an insurgency in Egypt. Egyptian security forces are engaged in a conflict with militant Islamists in North Sinai. The insurgents are targeting government services and security forces and more recently have also targeted international tourists including an attack on Israeli tourists in Cairo in January 2016.[42]

    [42] ‘Gunmen open fire on tourist bus outside Cairo hotel’, Al Jazeera, 7 January 2016

24. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is not a target of the insurgents and, having regard to the information above regarding the location and target of the insurgency and the population of Cairo, finds that chance the applicant will suffer serious harm or the risk she will suffer significant harm from terrorists is remote and does not accept that she faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from terrorists. 

    Mental health

25. The applicant has stated that she saw a psychiatrist in Egypt in 2011 following the assault by the taxi driver and received antidepressants. She has provided three letters from psychologists in Australia. The first, dated [in] November 2011, sets out a history as narrated by the applicant and states that she is suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (chronic) with some anxiety and depression as a direct result of events in Egypt during 2011. The second, dated [in] November 2013, also sets out a history as narrated by the applicant and states that she is suffering from Major Depressive Disorder and anxiety. The third, dated [in] November 2015, contains no diagnosis but refers to stress and anxiety. The Tribunal has had regard to these reports and diagnoses when assessing the applicant’s evidence.

26. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have experienced some trauma, stress and anxiety following the revolution in 2011 and the heightened insecurity and violence which followed but does not accept that any such stress or trauma explains the significant and fundamental inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence regarding [Mr C] and his friends which has led the Tribunal to reject her claims. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was able to fully and meaningfully participate in the hearing.

    Future harm

27. For all of the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or her family members were subject to abuse, harassment or threats of serious or significant harm from [Mr C], his mother or his friends arising because the applicant refused [Mr C]’s marriage proposal in 2011. For all of the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept that [Mr C]’s friend intended to force the applicant to marry him in order to convert her to Islam so that [Mr C] could then marry her. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm on return to Egypt from [Mr C], his friend or his mother because she refused the marriage proposal.

28. The Tribunal accepts that there has been some tension, verbal abuse and harassment of the applicant’s mother and sister following an allegation that her sister was involved with [Mr C]’s married brother. The Tribunal notes that the police and religious leaders have intervened and that the tensions have now reduced and that the applicant’s mother has continued to reside in her home without suffering any serious or significant harm. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm on return to Egypt arising from the allegation against [Ms B].

1. The Tribunal accepts that, following the January 2011 revolution there was an increase in violence directed towards Coptic Christians in Egypt however this has now calmed and strengthened law and order measures are now in place to prevent such violence re-occurring. Having regard to the country information above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future or a real risk of significant harm on return to Egypt because of her Christian religion, her gender or her status as a relatively young, single, Christian woman.

2. Having regard to all of the evidence and findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future in Egypt because of her religion or her membership of particular social groups comprising women, Christian women, young Christian women or young Christian women without male protection, separately or cumulatively. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.

3. Having regard to all of the evidence and findings above, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia and returned to Egypt, there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm arising from her religion or her gender or her age or her status as a woman alone, separately or cumulatively.

   CONCLUSION

4. 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).

5. 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 is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

6. 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

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

   Rea Hearn Mackinnon
   Member