1507346 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 2087

1507346 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2087 (16 August 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1507346

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:16 August 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 16 August 2017 at 12:46pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Egypt – Social group – Coptic Orthodox Christians – Supports religious converts – Preacher to Muslim girls – Supported interfaith marriages – Allegedly attacked and physically abused – Inconsistent evidence – Credibility issues

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss.5(1), 36, 36(2)(a)-(c), 36(2A), 36(2B), 65,91R,91S, 424A, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, 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). The primary applicant (the applicant) is the wife of the secondary applicant. The third and fourth applicants are their daughters.

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

3.In her application, the applicant stated the following:

My father died when I was very young and it was difficult for my mother to raise her children alone so she relied on the church a lot. I was looked after by my church community and considered [Fr A] as my father. I started serving the church from a very young age. My service to the church increased as I became older and during the last six years I have been part of a special group that looks after religious converts (to Islam or to Christianity). Much of my work has also involved talking to Muslims about Christianity - usually when they ask but also I often try as subtle as possible to introduce them to Christ.

Due to my religious service I have had many problems over the years including a very stressful situation in 2010 involving a partly disabled Muslim lady whose children neglected her and were thugs. I helped her and she became interested in knowing about Christ and hearing hymns. Her sons caused me a lot of trouble and I was terrorised by thugs and interrogated by police and Sheiks.

My serious problems related to my attempts to stop [Fr A]’s daughter, [Ms B] when she became involved with a Muslim man and converted to Islam. I was able to talk to her and convinced her to come to church and approach her father. Eventually she decided to remain with the Muslim man. I was also involved in another case of a Muslim girl who had married a Christian man and converted to Christianity. I helped her understand Christianity and used to go out with the couple. Her family cause a lot of disturbance in the area. My involvement in these two cases made me a target for many in the Muslim community and the police. I was persecuted and threatened with harm but [in] January 2014 I was physically attacked, my clothes torn and I was threatened with rape.

4.The primary applicant and secondary applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 April 2017.  The Tribunal spoke to the applicants about giving evidence and the secondary applicant was given the opportunity to give evidence. The parties indicated that the primary applicant would give evidence only. The primary applicant (the applicant) then proceeded to give evidence and present arguments. The parties were also told that the secondary applicant could remain in the room while the applicant gave evidence but he chose to remain outside.

5.The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of a NAATI professional interpreter (previously known as NAATI level 3) interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

6.The applicant stated she came to Australia [in] August 2014, that her application had been read back to her in Arabic and was correct and that she did not want to change or add anything.

7.The applicant stated before she came to Australia she lived in [Country 1] from February 2014 onwards. Before that, she and her husband and 2 children were in Cairo from 2009 onwards. Before that they were in [Country 2] from 2006 for 3 years. Before that she was in Bani Souwaif where her mother and brother still lived.

8.The applicant stated she was Coptic Christian.

9.The applicant stated that in Australia she currently worked three or four hours every day. She also helped in Sunday school, with the elderly [and] served in 2 churches.

10.The applicant stated she went to church in Egypt. In Bani Souwaif she went to [Church]. In Cairo she went to [other Churches]. She did not work and only served in the church. She returned to Bani Souwaif once a week.

11.The applicant stated she came to Australia because Christians were not accepted and there was no respect for women. She also stated she had been persecuted by the Sheik and the Muslim community in Cairo and in Bani Souwaif.

12.The applicant stated that in Cairo she was beaten [in] January 2014 when she was attacked by three boys, including [Mr C]. She stated they ripped her clothes, called her infidel and abused her because she was helping [Mr C]’s sister [Ms D] who was her husband’s work colleague and whom she met [in] July 2013 at [an event]. She stated [Ms D] was an educated Muslim and believed in and wanted to convert to Christianity. The applicant stated they accused her of being the reason [Ms D] converted. She also stated [Ms D] was in love with a fellow work colleague who was Christian. The applicant stated that part of her service was to preach to Muslim girls about God and Jesus and even though [Ms D] believed in Christianity, the applicant was helping her. When asked if [Ms D] married, she stated she last spoke with her [in] December 2013 and heard from the priest that she got married after that and they made her leave the country.

13.The Tribunal put to her that it was finding it difficult to accept that a Muslim managed to marry a Christian and asked what problems a Muslim girl marrying a Christian would face. She stated mostly killing. When asked what was the Egyptian government’s attitude towards such a marriage she stated an Islamic government would not accept it. She then proceeded to state that women had no rights, were not allowed to wear what they liked in the street and were not treated equally.

14.The Tribunal asked what the Coptic Church’s attitude towards such a marriage was and she stated the church believed women were free to decide for themselves. She stated the Coptic Church would want to know that [Ms D] really believed in Christianity but she could not say exactly what the church would do since these things were private and would be between [Ms D] and the priest and no one would know exactly what would happen because there would be a risk to her life. The Tribunal asked if she knew what would happen to the children of these unions. She stated the Muslims believed that these children should go to Islam.

15.The Tribunal put to her that it understood a marriage between a Christian and Muslim probably could not happen because such marriages were not recognised by the Egyptian State and the Coptic Church generally only performed marriages between Copts. The Tribunal also indicated marriage between Muslim women and Christian men was prohibited. She stated it was not prohibited but the woman had to convert to Christianity before marriage.

16.The Tribunal put to her that it understood Christians who were classified as Muslims on their identity cards would generally face difficulties being married in a Christian ceremony. She stated it had happened, she was unsure what the church did about it but there was a possibility that they would get them outside the country. She stated she knew it was prohibited in Egypt but in Christianity it was possible.  

17.The applicant stated she was attacked [in] January 2014 in a park near the church as she was returning from church. She stated [Mr C] and his brother attacked her. She stated [Mr C] ripped her clothes and spat at her and asked where [Ms D] was. She stated she started to cry. She also stated no woman should be treated in this way and added that because she did not wear the hijab she would be attacked in the street.

18.The applicant stated [Ms D]’s mother and brother had asked her for [Ms D]’s whereabouts [in] January 2014. She stated she told them she did not know and two days later the police and Sheik came, and took her to the police station and kept her all night. She told them she did not know anything and she was released without charge.

19.The Tribunal put to her that [Ms D] had fallen in love with a Christian man who she worked with and asked what she had to do with their relationship. She stated when she met them [at an event] the man had told them he was in love with [Ms D]. She stated after that she was talking to [Ms D] and trying to convince her about Christianity because it respected women. The Tribunal put to her that she had just met [Ms D]. She stated she did not have this conversation when they first met.

20.The applicant stated she had lots of problems because of her service. The applicant stated in Bani Souwaif in January 2010 an elderly neighbour’s children accused her of talking to her neighbour about Christianity.  The applicant stated she used to sing to her and the elderly neighbour would comment on her singing. She stated the police and Sheik told her that they had her name and said she was one of the girls preaching Christianity but she denied it. The Tribunal put to her that if she had been helping her for years then why would they suddenly accuse her and she stated the Sheiks had started to talk badly about Christians after Friday prayers.

21.The Tribunal put to her that in her tourist visa application she had stated she was in [Country 2] until [date] October 2010. She stated she was in Cairo.

22.The Tribunal also put to her that (as identified in the Departmental decision which the applicant provided to the Tribunal) she told the Department of Immigration at interview that she had talked to people who wanted to convert to Christianity because of [Father A] and she agreed. She stated that was part of her service. The Tribunal put to her that it was struggling to understand why a priest would send her to preach. The Tribunal put to her that it was no secret that Egypt was extremely volatile and preaching would put her in danger. She stated she chose to do it because when she was young she had witnessed abuse and had been sexually assaulted [and] she wanted to defend women.

23.The applicant stated [Fr A]’s daughter, [Ms B] had married a Muslim [in] March 2012 and on that day her husband had threatened the applicant because the applicant had tried to help her and had even convinced her to talk to the priest. The Tribunal put to her that her father was a priest. She stated they planned to take the strong girls.

24.The Tribunal asked if anything else happened to her as a result of [Ms B] marrying a Muslim. She stated they threatened her when she was leaving the church three days after [Date 1] March on [Date 2] March.  She stated there were four people, they scared her and frightened her and made her worried and nervous. She agreed that they said things that frightened her. When asked what they then did, she stated they left after they frightened her. The Tribunal put to her that she told the Department that it was four days after [Date 2] March and they came and beat her.  She agreed. The Tribunal put to her that she had not said that earlier. She stated maybe she was nervous. The Tribunal put to her that if four people had beaten her as opposed to saying things to her then it might be something she would remember. She stated that was what they did and maybe it was three or four days.

25.The applicant also talked about women in Egypt. She stated Muslim men had cut the head of a Christian girl in the street. The Tribunal put her that just because that had happened did not mean there was a real risk that it would happen to her.

26.The Tribunal put to the applicant that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said that the day-to-day life of most Copts was not overtly affected by communal tensions and that most Egyptians especially those living in urban areas work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity, however small scale disputes could adopt religious overtones and escalate into community level violence, particularly in poor rural and urban areas. The Tribunal also put her that a spike in communal tension could coincide with broader political upheavals. The Tribunal indicated that just because there were incidents of violence against Copts did not necessarily mean there was a real chance it would happen to her.

27.The applicant stated Cairo was different, many Christians were evicted, abused and burnt in the street. She stated one of her relatives who had a [shop] was killed. She stated the man who sold alcohol was killed and no one did anything. She also stated girls were kidnapped and that if she stayed in Egypt she would have tried to help them.

28.The Tribunal put to her that it was finding parts of the story difficult to accept because it was hard to believe that a priest would ask her to help convert Muslims to Christianity and that it was difficult to accept that [Ms B] would be able to marry a Muslim man given that it understood that she may have to seek permission to change her religion. The applicant stated it was different for Christians to convert to Islam. The Tribunal put to her that when a Christian registered a marriage with a Muslim she must have a letter of approval from the Egyptian church which refused to accept marriages between the different religions. The applicant stated she was the priest’s daughter and for her to convert was, according to the Muslims, something really great and that if you had money, you could get any document.

29.The Tribunal also put to her that it was struggling to understand how [Ms D], a Muslim woman who had married a Christian had had that marriage registered. The applicant stated she did not register her marriage in Egypt but had to go to [Country 3].

30.The Tribunal also put to her that her tourist visa application said she was living in [Country 2] in 2010. She stated she returned to Egypt in 2009.

31.The Tribunal also put her that when she was repeating what happened to her after [Ms D]’s marriage, she did not state unprompted that she had been beaten. She stated she was beaten and abused and they ripped her clothes and she could never forget that day.

32.The applicant stated she was worried about her daughter’s safety and was worried people would attack and abuse them. She was also worried about their future and it was dangerous for them. She stated women had no chance and were considered as rubbish. She stated when she was assaulted as a child she could not complain.

33.The Tribunal put to her that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had said Coptic women were generally able to work and travel unaccompanied in most areas of Egypt but that some Coptic women had reported being harassed or discriminated against after been identified as Copts, for instance for not having their hair covered. The Tribunal noted that DFAT said that such incidents were more likely to occur in rural and poor areas however DFAT also noted the relatively high levels of societal discrimination against all women in Egypt which was distinct from anti Copt prejudice.

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

It is orally recorded that the following interview took place between you and the Department of Immigration [in] February 2015 that the following exchange took place:

Q. You did not mention that in your application that your husband attacked you. So when did this happen and where?

A. [In] March 2012.

Q. So what has happened on this day?

A. The daughter and her husband came up to me and he said to me look I have taken her from you, you show me how you can get her back. Because she is a symbol of the church, that girl is a symbol of the church.

Q. Where in public?

A. Bani Souwif, [on a] Street.

Q. So they met him in the street and he verbally abused you?

A. Yes.  After that water was thrown on me and he beat me and told me or was bullying me saying we have taken her from you ,we have taken her from you.

Q. Who beat you?

A. Society that was living.

Q. Society beat you what you mean by that? a group of people attacked you ? When was that?

A. The Islamic group of people used to sarcastically look at me and say we have taken her away from you because she was a symbol of the church and they were confronting me.

Q. You said that a group of people attacked you they physically attacked you. They hit you when? When did they hit you?

A. When I was coming back from church because I said I was always at the church.

Q. When? What date did that happen?

A. After they took the girl after the [date] March.

Q. When, when if someone attacked you, a group of people attacked you, you would remember, you were very specific of [date] March when you say they approached you and verbally abused you I would think that people being attacked would recall that also so when?

A. Four days after exactly.

Q. Was that her husband who attacked you?

A. Her husband’s friends.

Q. Was he there? How do you know they were his friends?

A. He has a [shop] and these people were always sitting at his shop.

Q. So they attacked you four days later what did they do to you how did they attack you and why?

A. As I was coming back from church I could see for people standing in front of me.

Q. Did people report that if they attacked you I would assume that many people were leaving church that there were other people leaving church did they report that do you have a copy of the report you have any evidence?

A. We can’t report we are not able to do that.

Q. There were witnesses obviously there were people leaving church and if a woman was attacked by four men I would assume that it’s a populated area was it in Bani Souwaif? Was it in Bani Souwaif or Cairo?

A. As I was coming out of the church there were four people they just came and confronted me they were in front of me they started beating me they started boxing me.

Q. Right. I will stop you there because that was not mentioned in your application.

This is relevant because the Tribunal may find it is not satisfied that what you told the Department [in] February 2015 is consistent with what you initially stated at hearing which was that three days after [date] March four people scared you and frightened you and made you so worried and nervous, that they said things to you and left you after they had frightened you.  In addition, none of the details of this alleged incident were in your reasons why you left Egypt.

This is relevant because the Tribunal may not be satisfied that you are telling the truth. If the Tribunal finds it is not satisfied you are telling the truth, then it would affirm the decision under review.

Your tourist visa application

Your tourist visa application states that you were in [Country 2] from [date] February 2006 until [date] October 2010.

This is relevant because the Tribunal may find it is not consistent with your statement at hearing which was that in January 2010 you were in Bani Souwaif talking to an elderly neighbour and was accused of talking to her about Christianity.

This is relevant because the Tribunal may not be satisfied that you are telling the truth. If the Tribunal finds it is not satisfied you are telling the truth, then it would affirm the decision under review.

1. The applicant’s adviser responded as follows:

   Inconsistent evidence

   The RRT noted that the applicant did not give evidence during the hearing in relation to being physically beaten during incident on [date] March.

   Applicant did in fact state that she had been beaten but this was not interpreted correctly. At position 6:15 of part 2 of recording the claims are as follows:

   Interpreter: they scared me, frightened me and made me worried and nervous.

   The applicant used a word in Arabic that is used to indicate either physical or verbal abuse. The specific Arabic word Ta’bahdalat, that was used is often used when referring to intense abuse or abuse associated with shame. Having described the incident using the word sworn, the applicant described the verbal abuse hence when she continued to use the word Tabahdalat, it follows that she was referring to physical abuse. This is highly likely interpretation in view of the further misinterpretation at position 6:57 of the hearing recording.

   Member: so they said things to you did they

   Applicant: yes of course. They said things and they beat me.

   Interpreter: told me many things and frightened me.

   The applicant clearly stated she was beaten and this confirms the likelihood that her earlier use of the word Tabahdalat referred to physical abuse.

   The hearing continued with the RRT informing the applicant that she had previously told the department that she was beaten. The applicant confirmed the RRT’s statement given the understanding that she had already stated that she was beaten. When RRT tried to clarify that applicant did not say she had been beaten, she became confused (audibly evident) and understood the clarification related to number of days in relation to beating. The applicant moves on and continues to talk about recent incidents in Egypt while clearly oblivious to the significant misunderstanding that had occurred.

   Tourist Visa

   The tourist visa application was completed by the applicant’s husband, [Mr E]. [Mr E] clarified that he made an error whilst completing Q. 31 of the application by listing the validity dates of his visa given that his wife’s visa was linked to his. Below is clarification and attached is documentary evidence.

   [Mr E] travelled to [Country 2] [date]/3/2006.

   [The primary applicant] was granted [Country 2] visa in approximately September 2007. Date not clear due to stamp on visa but file number indicates 2007.

   [The primary applicant] travelled to [Country 2] [date]/12/2007.

   [The primary applicant] returned to Egypt [date]/4/2009.

   [The primary applicant] forwards passport to [Mr E] in [Country 2] for cancellation of her visa. Given that [the primary applicant] was not intending to return to [Country 2] within a six-month period, [Mr E]’s employer requested that the visa be cancelled.

   [The primary applicant] visa cancelled [date] /8/2009.

   [Mr E] returns to Egypt [date] /10/2010.

   Other issues

   It appears that there was some confusion in relation to legality and the stance of the Coptic Church of a marriage between Muslim female and Christian male. Applicant was trying to explain many instances of such marriages occur despite the fact that they are illegal. The Church will perform the marriage if the female converts to Christianity however her religious conversion is not reflected in her ID documents and the marriage is not legally recognised. Many couples in such a situation depart Egypt.

   36.The Tribunal sent a further letter pursuant to section 424A dated 30 June 2017

   In correspondence from your adviser dated 24 April 2017, your adviser stated that at the Tribunal hearing you stated you were beaten and that there was an interpreter error. The Tribunal subsequently had a second interpreter listen to and translate the relevant section of the hearing and they translated it as follows:

   Applicant: Of course I encountered some problems afterwards. They came, they
   threatened me, they said 'we will take you'. A few thugs came as I was coming back
   from church. They threatened me. They insulted me. And they said we will take you
   the same way as we took '[Ms F]'.
   Interpreter: (talked over applicant) Of course I faced so many problems and threats
   because a group of thugs they came and they threatened me when I was leaving the
   church. And they told me that we will take you the same as we took her.
   Member: When did they do that?
   Interpreter: When?
   Applicant: After the [Date 1]th. Three days after.
   Interpreter: Three days after the [Date 1]th of March.
   Applicant: [Date 2]th, sorry...
   Interpreter: On the [Date 2]th of March
   Member: How many people were there?
   Interpreter: How many people?
   Applicant: There were four.
   Interpreter: Four of them.
   Member: What did they do?
   Interpreter: What did they do?
   Applicant: I was coming back from church. I got insulted, told off and they scared me
   and they horrified me. They made me tense, I was under tension.
   Interpreter: I was returning from church and they scared me, they frightened me. They made me so worried and nervous because...
   Applicant: Exactly. I wouldn't be able to do anything to them in Egypt.
   Interpreter: Because in Egypt I won't be able to do anything for them.
   Applicant: And still in Egypt, the other side (Party) would be coming (emerging). The
   party of righteousness, the Islamic side.
   Interpreter: Because the police would stand on the Islamic side.
   Applicant: No one over there will be able to come and save me.
   Interpreter: No one will be able to help me there.
   Member: They said things to you, did they?
   Interpreter: They said things to you?
   Applicant: Yes, certainly. Yes they said things to me, they scared me, they horrified
   me.
   Interpreter: Yes they told me many things and they frightened me.
   Member: And then what did they do?
   Interpreter: What did they do afterwards?
   Applicant: They let me go. They told me, Its all about terrifying, terrifying the girls.
   Interpreter: Well they left me after they frightened me because this is their way of
   frightening the girls.
   Member: Can I say that, you told the Department of Immigration that 4 days after the
   [Date 2]th of March, and they came and they beat you?
   Interpreter: I want to say to you that you told the Immigration, that 4 days after the
   [Date 2]th of the 3rd, they came and they beat you?
   Applicant: Yes.
   Interpreter: Yes.
   Applicant: That's true.
   Member: Why didn't you say that to me?
   Interpreter: Why didn't you say these words now?
   Applicant: I've just said, I might have made a mistake, for example. I said 3 days, I
   meant, sometimes as I'm talking, I meant 4 days.
   Interpreter: Maybe I was nervous and I wanted to say 3 - 4 days.
   Member: Well, if a group, if 4 men have beaten me as opposed to simply saying
   things to me, it might be something I would remember?
   Interpreter: It means, if a group came and beat me, and told me things like that, I
   should, I am supposed to have remembered exactly?
   Applicant: Yeah I remembered, I said after [Date 2]th of the 3rd, that's what happened
   to me. After 4 days.
   Interpreter: That's to let you know when I said on the [Date 2]th of March, that would be
   maybe 3 or 4 days.

   This is relevant because the Tribunal may, as already indicated in its letter dated 12 April 2017, find it is not satisfied that what you told the Department [in] February 2015 is consistent with what you initially stated at hearing which was that three days after [Date 1] March four people scared you and frightened you and made you so worried and nervous, that they said things to you and left you after they had frightened you. It may also reject your adviser’s submission that you did tell the Tribunal that you were beaten before the Tribunal put this to you and that there was an interpreter error at hearing.
   This is relevant because the Tribunal may not be satisfied that you are telling the truth. If the Tribunal finds it is not satisfied you are telling the truth, then it would affirm the decision under review.

   37.The Tribunal received the following response:

   The RRT has provided a translation of the relevant section of the previous RRT hearing which is referred to in my email of 24 April 2017.

   The translation provided does not specifically include the word ‘beaten’ however as addressed in my previous email the use of the word ‘Ta’bahdalat’ has a range of interpretations. Given the range of interpretations, it follows that there would be a range of translated words.

   From personal experience with Egyptian dialect, the word ‘Tabahdalat’ is used frequently amongst Egyptians (more so than amongst Lebanese for example). 
   This word is often used in reference not only to personal body harm but also to physical damage to personal clothing for example when clothing is torn or soiled in a sudden or violent manner.

   In the given case, the use of ‘Ta’bahdalat’ by the applicant is highly likely to have meant a form of physical abuse given that the applicant was confused (audibly evident) when the RRT attempted to clarify and the applicant was of the understanding that the RRT had received the claim of being physically abused.

   [The primary applicant] intends to further clarify this point during further RRT hearing on 4 August 2017.

   38.The Tribunal held a further hearing on 4 August 2017. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of a NAATI professional interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

   39.The Tribunal put to the primary applicant that since the first hearing on 7 April 2017 DFAT had issued a new Egyptian Country Information Report dated 19 May 2017 and put to her that DFAT had said that most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity. however small-scale disputes such as neighbourhood disagreements could on occasion adopt religious overtones and escalate into community level violence, particularly in poorer and rural areas, and most communal incidents in Egypt took the form of vandalism and destruction of property. DFAT had also stated that high profile incidents in which people were killed or churches attacked were not a frequent occurrence. DFAT had also assessed that occasional violent incidents of communal violence were likely to continue to occur especially in Upper Egypt and in Minya and most cases are likely to be the result of small-scale localised disputes that take on a religious dimension.

   40.The applicant stated that was what the world knew but in reality Christians were oppressed and it was not the first time that the churches had been attacked. She stated Egypt was mostly an Islamic country and Christians were oppressed and that the authorities did nothing. She also stated when ladies weren’t veiled lots of things happened to them. She also stated the largest university in Egypt was Salafist and against Christians and this did not appear in the international media. She stated the life of Christians was in danger. The Tribunal put to her that DFAT assessed that discrimination faced by Christians was more likely to be societal than official in nature and was likely to vary considerably according to the geographic location and that some Christians, particularly in rural areas faced difficulty in obtaining justice through legal means.

   41.The applicant stated the church was attacked in Cairo. The Tribunal confirmed that that was in December 2016 and the applicant stated also in Tanta. The Tribunal put to the applicant that Tanta was not Cairo and that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had said that high profile incidents in which churches are attacked was not a frequent occurrence. The applicant stated that lots of things happened around them, churches were burned and they stole everything from inside. She stated there were places they could not go and pray and this was happening all over Egypt.

   42.The Tribunal also put to her that DFAT had said that women participated in all areas of Egyptian society including government, business and civil society however, societal, cultural and religious barriers continued to place considerable limits on that participation. DFAT had quoted a 2013 UN woman study that found 99.3% of Egyptian women had experienced sexual harassment while 91.5% reported experiencing unwanted physical contact. DFAT had also assessed that the majority of Egyptian women regardless of religion and socio-economic level faced societal discrimination in that long-standing traditional values and gender roles continued to restrict their participation in the community and workforce.  DFAT also assessed that the majority of Egyptian women faced a high risk of gender-based violence including sexual assault and domestic violence.

   43.The applicant stated this was a fact. She also stated women had no right to do everything they wanted. The applicant stated she was scared for her future and society was not merciful to them because they did not accept Christians in the country. She stated Muslims had shaved a woman’s head in Cairo. She also stated they killed her and that no one saved her. She stated the government did not encourage justice and those kind of people lived among them and nothing happened to them. She stated every day something like that happened to Christians. She said there was no safe haven in Egypt for the Christians and the Salafists wanted the country to be purely Islamic.

   44.The applicant also referred to the section 424A letter and stated that she wanted to explain the word she used when she was humiliated. She stated this word was not used in the Arabic dictionary but was used in the local community and they had lots of words in the Egyptian dialect and what she meant by this word was when her body was exposed to danger, when she was humiliated she was subject to bodily danger and was hit.

   Country Information

   Interfaith relationships

   45.DFAT reports that Christians who are classified as ‘Muslim’ on their identity cards (irrespective of whether they were born to Christian or Muslim families) will generally face difficulties being married in a Christian ceremony.[1] Under Egyptian law, Christians must seek certification from the church before a marriage is recognised by civil authorities and a marriage contract from the state is issued.[2] DFAT notes that the Coptic Church ‘will generally only marry a couple from the same denomination.’[3]

   [1] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.9 <CIS27158>

   [2] Guindy, A. 2007, ‘Family Status Issues Among Egypt’s Copts: A Brief Overview’, Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 3, September, p.1  < Accessed 17 October 2012; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.10 <CIS27158>

   [3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.10 <CIS27158>

   46.In November 2013 an unidentified associate professor at an American university and researcher of Christian minorities in the Middle East advised the IRBC that ‘a convert to Christianity from Islam will have extreme difficulty dealing with officials and neighbours who have any idea of his or her decision.’[4] According to the academic, ‘Muslim converts to Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam tantamount to treason.’[5] In November 2013, Minority Rights Group similarly reported that those who convert to Christianity ‘often prefer to do so in private, because of fear of harassment from the authorities and Islamist organizations.’[6]

   [4] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2013, EGY104664.E, 27 November, UNHCR Refworld < Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2013, EGY104664.E, 27 November, UNHCR Refworld < Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples – Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld <

   47.The Egyptian courts have supported the government’s approach towards Christian converts. According to the 2013 USCIRF Annual Report:

   In past cases where converts have sued for the right to reflect their new religious affiliation on ID cards, Egyptian courts have ruled that Muslims are forbidden from converting from Islam based on principles of Islamic law because conversion would constitute a disparagement of the official state religion and entice other Muslims to convert.[7]

   [7] United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2013, USCIRF Annual Report 2013 - Countries of particular concern: Egypt, 30 April, p.55, UNHCR Refworld < Accessed 24 June 2013 <CX309916>

   48.The BBC News, in their article, Egypt: The Forbidden Love of Interfaith Marriage noted that:

   ‘Interfaith marriages are increasingly unacceptable in Egypt and couples must be ready to pay a hefty price.… Religious leaders often see inter-faith marriage as an attempt to recruit members from the other religion. Religion is an incredibly sensitive issue in Egypt, with many Christians and Muslims refusing to accept people leaving their congregation.… Fr George Matta, Pastor of St George Church at Ezbet Hanna Ayoub in Menya, Upper Egypt, suggests that the culture in the Egyptian countryside does not accept interfaith relationships … Last year, a Muslim man was killed and five others were injured in clashes that took place in a remote village in Menya province. During the same incident, five Christian houses were set on fire. The fighting erupted because of a relationship between a Muslim girl and a Christian neighbour.… Ahmed Attallah [an Egyptian writer who studies sectarian clashes] says that interfaith marriage has effectively become prohibited in Egypt. "When a Christian woman goes to a notary to register a marriage with a Muslim man, the officials tell her that she must have a letter of approval from the Church," he says. "The Egyptian Church has consistently refused to approve marriages between different Christian sects, let alone different religions." he adds.….’82

   49.The United States Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2015 for Egypt also noted that:

   ‘Laws affecting marriage and personal status generally related to an individual’s religious group. For example, a female Muslim citizen cannot legally marry a non-Muslim man. If she were to do so unofficially, she would face significant societal harassment. Under the government’s interpretation of Islamic religious law, any children from such a marriage could be placed in the custody of a male Muslim guardian.’84

   50.The latest DFAT Country Information Report Egypt dated 19 May 2017 states that it replaces the previous DFAT Information Report on Egypt and the DFAT Thematic Report on Egyptian Copts, both published on 24 November 2015. It also states the following:

   Communal Violence

   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 on occasion adopt religious overtones and escalate into community level violence, particularly in poorer and rural areas. Most communal incidents in Egypt take the form of vandalism and destruction of property. High profile incidents in which people are killed or churches attacked are not a frequent occurrence.

   The majority of incidents of communal violence in recent years have taken place in the provinces of Upper Egypt. The province of Minya-which has a sizable (approximately 40%) and relatively assertive Christian population, high concentration of Islamists, high rate of poverty, and low rate of education-has been particularly notable in this regard. According to the National Council of Human Rights, around 10 incidents of communal violence occur each month in Minya.

   A general breakdown in law and order nationwide following the 2011 revolution contributed to a significant growth in communal violence that peaked in the period leading up to and immediately following the July 2013 military intervention, and again in the aftermath of the August 2013 dispersals of pro-Morsi protests in Cairo. On these occasions, Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters attacked Christian targets across the country, including churches, schools and private property. Most, but not all of the incidents were marked by a slow police response, which may have been in part the result police and security personnel being otherwise engaged in protecting government institutions. Large-scale anti-Christian violence ended with the declaration of a nationwide state of emergency and curfew in August 2013, combined with a security crackdown on protest activity by brotherhood supporters.

   A November 2014 government reports into the anti-Christian violence found that 29 people had died in communal-related killings, 52 churches had been completely razed, another 12 damaged and numerous Christian owned properties destroyed. In December 2014, 40 perpetrators found responsible for attacks on churches in Upper Egypt received prison terms ranging from 1 to 15 years. The US State Department reported in 2015 that, under a specific presidential order, the military had completed the rebuilding of around one third of the churches and other buildings destroyed in the 2013 violence.
   Incidents of communal violence continued in 2016. Many of the incidents took place in Minya, including physical assaults of Christians and looting and destruction of Christian property. In May 2016, an elderly woman was stripped and assaulted by a 300-strong mob angered by rumours that her son was in a relationship with the divorced Muslim woman. In July 2016, eight men involved in the incident were released and ordered to pay a fine. Around 154 Christian families fled the nnorthern Sinai town of al-Arish after seven Coptic Christians were reportedly killed by Islamic state affiliated militants in January/February 2017.

   Egyptian leaders are sensitive to the impact of communal violence. President Sisi has repeatedly denounced attempts to create rifts among Egyptians and called for national unity, most recently in relation to the displacement of Christians from northern Sinai. However, lower-level church officials have questioned the commitment of local officials and law enforcement to upholding the law equally for Christians and Muslims.

   DFAT assesses that while Egyptian authorities are generally committed to preventing communal violence, this commitment may vary between individuals and locations. Occasional violent incidents of communal violence are likely to continue to occur, especially in Upper Egypt and Minya in particular. Most cases are likely to be the result of small-scale localised disputes that take on a religious dimension.

   Christians

   Christianity has deep roots in Egypt, arriving approximately six centuries before Islam. Although there are 12 officially recognised Christian denominations in Egypt, the overwhelming majority of Christians in Egypt are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church. All those belonging to recognised Christian denominations identified as Christian on their national ID cards. While Christians reside throughout the country, they are particularly concentrated in Upper Egypt (the southern part of Egypt) and a major city such as Cairo and Alexandria. Suburbs in Cairo, other cities and some villages are sometimes regarded or described as Christian areas, but few are exclusively Christian (or Muslim). The Christians are politically and socio-economically diverse: they hold varied professions, range from the very poor to the substantially rich, and have obtained a range of education levels.
   Christians generally dress similarly to Muslim Egyptians. In urban areas, however, Christian women are more likely to leave their hair uncovered than are Muslim women. Christian women living in rural or conservative areas are more likely to cover their hair, but would not wear the Islamic hijab. Christians tend to have identifiable names. Though not a mandatory part of religious practice, Christians often have small crosses tattooed on the inside of their wrists or between their thumb and forefinger as a mark of their identity. Such tattoos are often obtained after Christians have visited monasteries or holy sites. It is unclear what percentage of the Christian community has such tattoos, roof the practice is increasing or decreasing.

   As an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim country, Egyptian laws and long-standing practices are generally designed to safeguard the majority (although the Constitution preserves the rights of all Egyptians). There are no legal barriers to prevent Christians from attaining visibility in public life, and a number of Christians have become prominent and influential in Egyptian politics and business. DFAT understands that the percentage of Christians in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population. However, Christians tend to be underrepresented in senior civil servant roles and in the upper ranks of the military and security services. It is very rare for Christians to be appointed as presidents, deans or vice-deans and public universities. While anti discriminatory laws and legal protection exists, these are not always enforced fairly and Christians may experience some discrimination, particularly in rural areas.

   Most Christians viewed the post-2011 revolution ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood with considerable apprehension. They regarded the Morsi government’s removal and the restoration of general law and order as a cause for relief, and strongly supported the ascendancy of Sisi to the presidency. Christian religious authorities have consistently expressed appreciation for Sisi’s public calls for Egyptians to place national unity above religious differences. Sisi attended the main Coptic Christians evening mass in January 2015, the first time a serving Egyptian leader had done so, and attended again in January 2016. Sisi also called personally on Pope Tawadros to express his condolences following the murders of 21 Egyptian cops in Libya in February 2015. Following the December 2016 church bombing in Cairo, Sisi declared three days of national mourning, attended the funeral from victims and ordered the armed forces to repair quickly the damaged church. As noted in security situation, following the twin Palm Sunday bombings, Sisi declared a nationwide state of emergency. Christians generally remain strong supporters of Sisi although (like other Egyptians) their initial enthusiasm has waned due to the lack of economic improvement and ongoing social difficulties in Egypt, including the threat of terrorism.

   DFAT assesses that discrimination faced by Christians in Egypt is more likely to be societal and official in nature, and is likely to vary considerably according to geographic location. However some Christians, particularly in rural areas, may face difficulty in obtaining justice through legal means. Christians are less likely than Muslims to be able to achieve senior positions in institutions such as the civil service, military and security services and universities despite the lack of any official policy of discrimination against them.

   Women

   51.The latest DFAT Country Information Report Egypt dated 19 May 2017 states the following:

   DFAT assesses that the majority of Egyptian women, regardless of religion and socio-economic level, face societal discrimination in that long-standing traditional values and gender roles continue to restrict their participation in the community and workforce. DFAT assesses the majority of Egyptian women face a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence.

   RELEVANT LAW

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

   Refugee criterion

   53.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).

   54.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

   61.In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

   62.Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

   Complementary protection criterion

   63.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’).

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

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

   Section 499 Ministerial Direction

   66.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

   67.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.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

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

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

   70.Central to the applicant's case is her claim that she, a Coptic Christian from Cairo who also visits Bani Souif, fears Muslims because she has tried to convince or been accused of trying to convince Muslims to convert to Christianity and in one case, tried to convince a Christian not to marry a Muslim. The applicant has also claimed that during the last six years she has, with the support of Christian priests, been part of a special group that looked after religious converts (to Islam or to Christianity) and that much of her work involved talking to Muslims about Christianity - usually when they asked but also she often subtly tried to introduce them to Christ.

   71.More specifically, the applicant has stated that in 2010 she was accused of trying to convert an elderly neighbor in Bani Souwaif, that she tried to stop [Ms B], [Father A]’s daughter from marrying a Muslim and was targeted as a result, and that in Cairo, she supported [Ms D] who converted from Islam to Christianity and married a Christian.

   72.The Tribunal will deal with each of these events:

   Incidents in Bani Souwaif

   [Father A]’s daughter’s marriage

   73.The Tribunal does not accept that the alleged marriage between [Ms B] and a Muslim has occurred. That is because country information indicates that when a Christian woman goes to register a marriage with a Muslim man, she must have a letter of approval from the church and the Egyptian church has consistently refused to approve marriages between different religions.  When this was put to the applicant, she initially stated that it was different when Christians converted to Islam and did not appear to know that such a union needed Egyptian church approval even though she alleged that she spoke to [Ms B] and even managed to get her to talk to a priest. Even if the Tribunal accepts that it is plausible that the applicant may not know these details, the Tribunal put to the applicant that she gave inconsistent evidence in relation to when and whether she was physically assaulted as a result of her trying to help [Ms B], that is she initially stated at hearing that when she was leaving the church on [date] March four people scared her and made her worried and nervous and only agreed that they started beating her when the Tribunal put to her that she told the Department that four days after [date] March they started beating her.  When this was put to her at hearing, she stated that maybe she was nervous and maybe it was three or four days later.  After hearing, the adviser submitted that the applicant stated she had been beaten and that this was not interpreted correctly. She also stated the applicant had used a word in Arabic that indicated either physical or verbal abuse, that the specific Arabic word Ta’ bahdalat, was often used when referring to intense abuse or abuse associated with shame and that having described the incident using the word sworn, the applicant described the verbal abuse hence when she continued to use the word Ta’bahdalat it followed that she was referring to physical abuse. The adviser also stated this was highly likely in view of a further misinterpretation and that when the applicant said ‘they beat me’ this was interpreted as ‘frightened me’.

   74.The adviser has provided no evidence in support of this submission and no interpretation issues were raised by the applicant or interpreter at hearing. In addition, a NAATI accredited professional interpreter (previously known NAATI level 3) was engaged at hearing and a second accredited interpreter (also NAATI professional interpreter) essentially agreed with the interpretation at hearing.

   75.The applicant also stated that the word humiliated was not used in the Arabic dictionary but was used in the local community and what she meant by this word was when her body was exposed to danger, and when she was humiliated she was subject to bodily danger and was hit.  The Tribunal has considered this but does not accept that the word the applicant used at hearing was not used in the Arabic dictionary since a professional interpreter interpreted it at hearing and another interpreter concurred with that interpretation.

   76.In sum, given that the second interpreter concurred with that interpretation, the Tribunal does not accept that there was an interpretation problem at hearing.

   77.The Tribunal finds that the applicant gave inconsistent evidence in relation to when and whether she was physically assaulted as a result of trying to help [Ms B], that is she initially stated at hearing that when she was leaving the church on [date] March four people scared her and made her worried and nervous and only agreed that they started beating her when the Tribunal put to her that she told the Department that four days after [date] March they started beating her.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant was unable to discuss these events at hearing with any level of detail or consistency. The Tribunal also finds that given that the [date] March was allegedly [Ms B] wedding day then if these events had occurred on [Ms B] wedding day (as opposed to four days later) she would have been able to consistently state that throughout the course of the protection visa application.

   Elderly neighbor

   78.The applicant has stated that a number of incidents have happened to her in Bani Souwaif as a result of her wanting to convert people to Christianity or being seen to want to convert people to Chrisitanity. She stated that in January 2010 she spoke to an elderly neighbour and was accused by her children of talking to her about Christianity but the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that her children would turn on the applicant given that she also stated that she had been helping her neighbour all her life. When this was put to her at hearing, she stated that the Sheiks had started to talk badly about Christians after Friday prayers. While the Tribunal has considered this, it does not accept that [Fr A] would, given the interfaith sensitivities and the real risk that proselytising would give rise to interfaith violence, send or endorse the applicant to preach Christianity to Muslims in the manner described.

   Incident in Cairo

   79.The applicant has also stated that she was involved with [Ms D], a Muslim girl who was her husband’s work colleague and whom she met in July 2013 and last spoke to in December 2013 and who had converted to Christianity and married a Christian work colleague. As put to the applicant at hearing, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that the applicant’s limited exposure to [Ms D] would enable the applicant, or be seen to have enabled the applicant to gain any level of intimacy and influence over her, especially given that [Ms D] had allegedly met her Christian husband independently of the applicant and at her own workplace and already believed in Christianity when she and the applicant first met.  

   80.In addition, when asked to discuss the Church’s attitude towards such a marriage, the applicant initially stated that the Church considered that people had the freedom to decide for themselves, then stated she could not say what the church would do since these things were private and then stated [Ms D] had to convert to Christianity before she could get married.  However, country information suggests that such a union would be highly unlikely because Christians who are classified as Muslim on their identity cards will generally face difficulties being married in a Christian ceremony because according to country information (and contrary to the agent’s submission that the church would perform the marriage if a female converted to Christianity however her conversion would not be reflected in her ID documents), the Egyptian Coptic Church has consistently refused to approve marriages between different religions and will generally only perform marriages where both parties are Copts. Given this country information and given that the adviser has provided no evidence in support of her submission that the Church would perform the marriage if a female converted then the Tribunal relies upon the country information before it.

   81.The Tribunal considers the applicant was unable to discuss, unprompted in any detail what the Coptic church’s attitude towards such a union would be even though she alleged that she helped [Ms D] as part of her service to the church (which was to preach to Muslim girls) and that such a union was not prohibited by her church but that the woman would have to convert to Christianity before marriage. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant was unable to discuss these details because she had not turned her mind to the Church’s attitude towards such a union because she was not talking about events that had actually occurred but was making up her evidence as she went along.

   82.The Tribunal also remains unconvinced that given the country information that states that religion is an incredibly sensitive issue in Egypt that the applicant would, as part of her service, be attempting to preach Christianity to Muslims or that the Coptic church clergy would encourage her to do so.  

   83.The Tribunal's overall impression of the applicant’s evidence at hearing was that she was reciting a learnt series of details rather than recalling events that had actually happened. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has attempted to convince [Ms B] to not marry a Muslim, nor that as a result she was physically or verbally attacked.  Neither does the Tribunal accept that the applicant tried to convert her elderly Muslim neigbour in Bani Souwaif or that her neighbour became interested in knowing about Christ and hearing hymns, or that her sons caused the applicant trouble or that she was terrorised by thugs and interrogated by police and Sheiks because she was perceived to have been converting her neighbour. Neither does the Tribunal accept that in Cairo she supported [Ms D] who converted from Islam to Christianity or that [Ms D] married a Christian or that the applicant was subsequently accused of being the reason why she converted, or that she was attacked, or threatened with rape nor that the police and Sheik came and took her to the police station and kept her all night. Neither does the Tribunal accept that the applicant has been part of a special group that looks after religious converts to Islam or to Christianity. Because the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has been preaching, neither does it accept that her religious service has meant that she has had many problems over the years or the alleged reason why the applicant preached (that she was assaulted as a child) has in fact occurred. In reaching these conclusions, the Tribunal has considered the letter from [Fr G], parish priest at [an] Orthodox Church in [Australia] for the last 14 years. He has stated that the applicant is a dedicated Christian and that he is aware of the persecution she and her family suffered back in Egypt, however given the applicant's lack of credibility, the Tribunal is not persuaded to give sufficient weight to [Fr G]’s letter to accept that the alleged events have occurred.

   84.As the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has or has been perceived to have converted Muslims to Christianity in the past, the Tribunal is not satisfied that she will convert or will be seen to convert Muslims to Christianity in the reasonably foreseeable future. Neither does the Tribunal accept that the applicant has been intervening between Christians and Muslims as part of her church service or talking to Muslims about Christianity.

   85.The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a Coptic Christian. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has noted in its most recent Thematic Report dated 19 May 2017 that “most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other's religious identity however small scale disputes such as neighbourhood disagreements can on occasion adopt religious overtones and escalate into community level violence, particularly in poorer rural and urban areas”. DFAT also notes that most communal incidents in Egypt take the form of vandalism and destruction of property and that high profile incidents in which people are killed or churches attacked are not a frequent occurrence. DFAT also notes that the Egyptian authorities are generally committed to preventing communal violence. This latest DFAT summary mirrors the earlier 24 November 2015 report that was put to the applicant at the first hearing. While the applicant has stated that was what the world knew but in reality Christians were oppressed DFAT’s reports state they are based on DFAT’s on the ground knowledge and discussions with a range of sources including professional and civil society organisations in Cairo and Alexandria as well as taking into account relevant and credible open source reports. 

   86.Having regard to the country information above and the fact that the applicant is a Coptic Christian from Cairo, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm because of her religion. That is because having regard to the country information above, the Tribunal finds that, while tensions and the potential for sectarian violence continue to exist, DFAT has assessed that urban areas such as Cairo on a day-to-day basis are not overtly affected by communal tensions, and the Egyptian authorities are generally committed to preventing communal violence. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has also considered the country information that the applicant has provided however most of this country information relates to upper Egypt and not Cairo. While the country information does include the attack on St Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, as previously stated, DFAT has stated that high profile incidents in which churches attacked are not a frequent occurrence and that the Egyptian authorities are generally committed to preventing communal violence.

   87.In assessing the applicant's fear of harm of being targeted as a Coptic woman and for being harassed in public for not wearing a hijab,  the DFAT report dated 24 November 2015 and put to the applicant at hearing states that Coptic women were generally able to work and travel unaccompanied in most areas of Egypt although some Coptic women had reported being harassed or discriminated against for instance for having their hair uncovered but that this was more likely to occur in rural and poor areas.  The subsequent DFAT report dated 19 May 2017 which was also put to the applicant at hearing assesses that the majority of Egyptian women, regardless of religion and socio-economic level, face societal discrimination in that long-standing traditional values and gender roles continue to restrict their participation in the community and workforce and that the majority of Egyptian women face a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence.

   88.The Tribunal accepts that there is widespread societal discrimination against all women in Egypt, including Coptic women. The DFAT report indicates that harassment is a frequent occurrence for women across the socio-economic spectrum. However, according to DFAT women also participate in all areas of Egyptian society, including government, business and civil society however societal cultural and religious barriers continue to place considerable limits on that participation.

   89.The Tribunal accepts the DFAT report that states that women face a high risk of gender based violence, however this violence includes domestic violence which the applicant has never alleged. The Tribunal also accepts the DFAT report that indicates that women face societal discrimination and harassment is a frequent occurrence for women across the socio-economic spectrum. While the Tribunal has considered whether there is a real chance the applicant will face gender-based violence from others, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s circumstances including her married status and the fact that she does not live alone as well as her relatively well-off socio economic status (given that she has been able to live for long periods overseas because of her husband’s work) is such that she is vulnerable to, or there is a real chance of her being seriously harmed in this way. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has also considered that before her departure from Egypt she was living in urban Cairo as opposed to a rural and poor area.   

   90.While the Tribunal also accepts that, the applicant as a woman, is more vulnerable to societal discrimination and harassment, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s circumstances including her married status and the fact that she does not live alone as well as her relatively well-off socio economic status means that she is vulnerable to, or there is a real chance she will experience discrimination and harassment commensurate with serious harm.

   91.Given the Tribunal's findings above, it is satisfied that the applicant does not face singularly or cumulatively a real chance of serious harm in Egypt for reasons of her being a Coptic Christian, a married female Coptic Christian, and a woman.

   92.Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

   93.The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a married female Coptic Christian. Having regard to the available country information and what the Tribunal has accepted of the applicant's claims and circumstances, including her socio economic status and that before her departure from Egypt she was living in Cairo, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Egypt there is a real risk of significant harm, that is the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of her life; or the death penalty will be carried out on her, or she will be subjected to torture; or will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment and punishment; or will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment as required by s.36(2)(aa).

   94.The second, third and fourth named applicants have made no independent claims for protection of their own and have applied on the basis of being members of the family unit of the primary applicant. However, because the applicant has provided a number of newspaper reports saying that Christian girls have been abducted and forced to convert to Islam or raped and has said she was worried about her daughters’ safety and was worried people would attack and abuse them and also claimed that their future was dangerous for them, the Tribunal has considered this.

   95.While the Tribunal accepts that children are generally more vulnerable because of their age, the applicant’s claims that they will be abducted or harmed are speculative. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that they will be abused and attacked or that their future will be dangerous. Neither is the Tribunal satisfied that there is a real chance that the third and fourth named applicant will be persecuted. Neither is the Tribunal satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the third and fourth applicants being removed from Australia to Egypt there is a real risk of significant harm.

   96.For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

   DECISION

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

   Angela Cranston
   Member