1513280 (Refugee)

1513280 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 2365 (6 September 2017)
.
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1513280
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt
MEMBER:Linda Symons
DATE:6 September 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 06 September 2017 at 5:06pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Egypt – Political opinion – Opposition to Government – Freedom and Justice Party – Organising demonstrations – Detentions – Fear of killings – Anti-government activities in Australia – Returned asylum seekers

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 36, 65, 91R(3), 499
Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2, r 1.12
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

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 applicants, who claim to be citizens of Egypt, arrived in Australia [in] October 2014 as holders of [temporary] visas. [In] November 2014, they were granted Bridging visas.
The applicants applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for Protection visas [in] October 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] September 2015. On 28 September 2015, the first named applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision. On 30 September 2015, he sought to amend his application for review by including the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants.
The first named applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 July 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
The issues that arise on review are whether Australia has protection obligations to the applicant under the Refugees Convention or under the complementary protection criterion.
RELEVANT LAW
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
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).
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.
Complementary protection criterion
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’).
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Member of the same family unit
Subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in r.1.12 of the Regulations to include spouse and dependent children.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
The first named applicant’s claims in his application for a Protection visa filed [in] October 2014 are summarised as follows:
·He was born in Egypt on [date]. He holds an Egyptian passport. He worked as [an occupation 1] in an Egyptian [and Country 1] company called [Company 1].
·He participated in demonstrations on [two dates in] January 2011. More than 900 people were killed during these demonstrations.
·He and his friend, [Mr A], established a party called the [Group 1] to promote democracy, educate people about civil governance and to oppose the military establishment. They organised many conferences and meetings. He was very active in managing the demonstrations and conferences and the publication of pamphlets. He had some articles published in the local newspapers and TV channels covered their activities.
·There was a good response to their activities from the Egyptian people but they realised that they lacked the necessary funding and experience and that the party did not allow them to realise their goal of participating effectively in a new government. He and [Mr A] joined the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) but did not join the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). They worked with them in matters relating to the administration of the people’s revolution. Their role was to promote services such as medical teams that give free consultations and treatment to the poor, sell food products at reduced prices, sell cheaper medication and stationery for children and establish exhibitions the revenue from which went to the poor and needy.
·He contracted with the hospitals to do cheaper medical operations that were sometimes free for those who are unable to pay for those services. He was very active in the distribution of food rations and gas bottles. He also had a special role as he was responsible for the suburb of [Suburb 1] where he lived. He was the co-ordinator for exhibitions, the maintenance of food, medical and substantial services and responsible for the management of conferences and political gatherings.
·As a member of the FJP, he attended weekly meetings at the suburban level and monthly meetings at the provincial level. High-ranking party members used to attend these meetings. He met Dr Mohammed Morsi at one of these meetings. He later became the President of Egypt. The purpose of these meetings was to evaluate the services and assess the political situation in Egypt. His role was to liaise with important people in Egypt, journalists and politicians and invite them to these meetings. These meetings were broadcast on TV. He was invited to some of the TV programs. Some of the conferences he hosted with high-ranking party members were broadcast on different TV channels.
·He and [Mr A] continued their social and political work after the election of the FJP in 2011. When Dr Mohammed Morsi was elected President of Egypt in 2012, he felt satisfied about the work he had done. He and [Mr A] became popular, people approached him to share their ideas about the situation in Egypt and he fell close to achieving his goal of fighting corruption and establishing freedom.
·The results of the election were not accepted by the military, the judiciary and the Police. There were demonstrations against the government on 30 June 2013. On 3 July 2013, there was a military coup led by Mr Sisi. President Morsi was imprisoned and arrest warrants were issued for more than 300 members of the FTP and the Muslim Brotherhood.
·They organised a sit-in in the area of Rabaa Aladawia, called Rabaa Square, on 28 June 2013. Hundreds of thousands of people took part in the demonstration against the military coup calling for the restoration of the legitimate government and President Morsi. He and [Mr A] managed parts of these demonstrations. They all agreed that the demonstration should be peaceful but events develop quickly when the Army and Police killed around 80 people and injured more than 200 people. He and [Mr A] were active in helping the injured to get medical assistance.
·During that time, he used to meet with other high-ranking leadership at Rabaa Square to obtain instructions about the management of the protests. On 14 August 2013, the Defence Minister and the military used force to end the protest. He managed to flee the scene. Two days later there was another demonstration in Ramses Square and he took part in that demonstration. Security forces attacked the demonstrators, killed nearly 160 people and injured more than 1000 people. He was injured in his head but he and [Mr A] were able to escape.
·[In] October 2013, he participated in another demonstration. The security forces again used force to end the demonstration. During his escape he was shot and fell to the ground. He was carried away bleeding from his back and leg. He and his family received telephone calls from unknown people threatening to kill him or torture him and his family unless he stopped his activities against the military regime. His family was so scared about the threats that his [Relative A] became hysterical and needed urgent psychiatric treatment. His children stopped going to school as they feared for their lives. However, he did not stop his campaign because he believed that what had happened in Egypt was unacceptable.
·On [a date in] September 2013, he received a telephone call from [Mr A’s] wife wanting to know if [Mr A] was with him. She was concerned as it was late, she did not know where he was, it was curfew time and he was not answering his telephone. He rang many people to enquire about [Mr A] but no one knew anything about him. Someone he knows received a telephone call from [Mr A’s] mobile telephone stating that [Mr A’s] body was found lying on the ground covered in blood and with torture marks clearly visible on his body. He did not go to the hospital but contacted them by telephone and was informed that he had passed away as a result of the beating and torture he suffered. He later found out that [Mr A] was stopped in the street and arrested by the military who tortured him.
·In order to avoid the same fate as [Mr A], he decided that he and his family should escape. He left his job and his home and went into hiding at the home of his [Relative B] on [a date in] November 2013. His [Relative B] was a former [official] in the Army, still had contact with some of his military colleagues and was able to protect him. His father told him that the Police and intelligence agents raided his house, told him that he was going to be arrested, his name was added to the list of people that the government wanted to punish, that he was prohibited from leaving Egypt, that they had evidence against him, that they had photographs showing him in Rabaa Square, with leaders and at gatherings and conferences which he organised against the government.
·The security forces did not stop looking for him. They sent an agent to investigate with his neighbours and work colleagues. On [a date in] February 2014, they raided his house. One of his neighbours told his father about this and that civilians with machine guns damaged the contents of his house while Police cars were waiting for them outside. His father reported this incident at the Police Station. The Police Chief told his father that he had no idea who had done that but after making some telephone calls he was told that the National Security Agency was looking for him because of his involvement with the FJP and the leaders of the FJP at Rabaa Square. His father was also told that they had photographs of him with high-ranking FJ P leaders and he threatened his father that he would be punished if he knows where he is or hides him. His apartment was again raided on [a date in] May 2014. His father did not go to the Police on this occasion.
·His [Relative B] passed away [in] August 2014. He decided to hide in another place in [Area 1]. Later in] August 2014, his wife was fired from her job for “security reasons”. He then decided to leave Egypt but was prohibited from travelling outside Egypt. He asked one of his friends who had a friend in the Police to assist him. This person facilitated their exit from Cairo with the assistance of another person who worked at Cairo airport. This person stamped their passports. He asked for a bribe of £[amount] and they agreed to pay £[different amount]. This had to be paid one day prior to his departure. He then applied to the Australian Embassy for a [temporary] visa and left Egypt [in] October 2014.
The second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants have not made any claims in their own right. The first named applicant has claimed that they are members of his same family unit.
The first named applicant has provided to the Department copies of his passport and the passports of the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants. He has also provided bundles of photographs, two DVDs of demonstrations without English translations, a report from the examining doctor at [Hospital 1] dated [in] September 2013, a Death Certificate dated [the previous day in] September 2013 in relation to [Mr A],a Coroner’s Report dated [a date in] December 2013 and [later in] December 2013, an Extract from a Commercial Register dated [in] October 2013, a letter dated [in] January 2015 from [Welfare Agency 1] to [a government agency], a GP Management Plan dated [in] December 2014 from [a] Medical Centre and a Report dated [in] February 2015 from [that] Medical Centre.
The first named applicant attended an interview with the Department [in] February 2015. During that interview, he re-iterated and expanded on his written claims.
The first named applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015, four bundles of photographs, two DVDs, copies of thirty photographs which he claims were taken at [city location 1] [in] January 2017, copies of thirty four photographs which he claims were taken at [Suburb 2] [in] January 2015 (this included seven photographs which appear to have taken of people on television or the internet), copies of seven photographs which he claims were taken at [Suburb 3] [in] November 2014, copies of two newspapers articles and websites in relation to the Australian journalist Peter Greste, websites in relation to country information on Egypt, Reports dated [November] 2015 and [in] January 2016 from [Welfare Agency 2], a letter dated [in] February 2016 from [that agency] to him and a copy of his passport.
The Tribunal received submissions dated 7 July 2017 from the applicants’ migration agent in which he made submissions in relation to the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015.
The first named applicant was given further time after the hearing to provide additional evidence and submissions and English translations of evidence he sought to rely on. On 24 July 2017, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicants’ migration agent enclosing the following documents: undated statement from [his brother named], undated statement from [his father], Statutory Declaration dated 17 July 2017 from [Mr B], undated document headed ‘Person 1: If the punishment of the Military Council to Mubarak is home arrest at Sharm El Sheikh then we should all seek the same treatment by residing at Sharm El Sheikh’, undated document headed ‘Thinkers: Instigation against homeland…is a capital treason whose punishment could be execution’, undated document headed ‘video 2’, undated document headed ‘V3’, undated document headed ‘V4’, undated document headed ‘V5’, undated document headed ‘V6’, a USB flash drive and a document titled ‘USB flash memory stick.
Nationality
The Tribunal finds that the first named applicant is a citizen of Egypt based on his passport and his evidence and will assess his claims on this basis. The Tribunal finds that he is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.
Membership of the same family unit
The Tribunal finds that the second named applicant is the spouse of the first named applicant and the third, fourth and fifth named applicants are his dependent children. The Tribunal finds that the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants are members of the same family unit as the first named applicant.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the first named applicant under the Refugees Convention?
The first named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his application for a Protection visa was prepared by his former migration agent on his instructions which were true and correct. He stated that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. He stated that there is one inaccuracy in his statement of claims; he was in hiding in November 2013 not August 2013 as stated.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the first named applicant his background, his family, his reasons for leaving Egypt, his political activities in Australia and why he fears returning to Egypt. There were a number of problems with his evidence. The Tribunal found aspects of his evidence to be implausible, inconsistent and unconvincing. He made new claims during the hearing and changed his evidence during the course of the hearing. There were also problems with some of his supporting documents which raised concerns in relation to their authenticity and the veracity of some of his claims. The Tribunal is of the view that he is not a reliable or credible witness for the reasons that follow.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that he and his friend, [Mr A], established a party called the [Group 1] to promote democracy, educate people about civil governance and to oppose the military establishment. He claimed that they organised many conferences and meetings. He claimed that he was very active in managing the demonstrations and conferences and the publication of pamphlets. He claimed that he had some articles published in the local newspapers and TV channels covered their activities.

During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he and his friend [Mr A] established the [Group 1] after the revolution in January 2011. He stated that they invited friends, neighbours and co-workers to join them. He stated that a Coptic Christian businessman supported them by allowing them to use his business premises for meetings and providing funds. He stated that the organization was not registered as a political party. He stated that he helped organize a conference on [a date in] June 2011 about security. He stated that the three main guests at the conference were a General in the Police, the Manager of the Police Academy and a General in the Army. He stated that the speaker from the army went on to work in intelligence in the army and became an expert in strategy. He stated that they were invited so that they could provide people with information and answer questions.
The Tribunal finds it implausible that, if one of the goals of the [Group 1] was to oppose the military establishment, they would have invited a General in the army to be a speaker at their first conference and that he would have attended the conference. The Tribunal also finds it implausible that high ranking officers in the Police would have agreed to be speakers at a conference organized by an organization that was anti-military. This raises concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims in relation to the [Group 1].
The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015. It indicates that, during his interview [in] February 2015, he claimed that the conference in June 2011 was attended by representatives from the military and the Police Force and included Muslims and Christians. It indicates that, when the delegate raised with him the fact that he was unable to find any reference to the [Group 1] he stated that it was a small movement that relied on donations and this was the reason why he decided to leave and join the FJP.
The first named applicant has provided to the Department a number of photographs which appear to be of people attending a conference. On the stage there are two tables with three people seated at each table. The first named applicant is seated at one of the tables. The Department was provided with a DVD and the Tribunal was provided with a flash drive which contain a video recording of the conference. It shows the three speakers at one table being asked questions by the three people at the second table including the first named applicant. Following the hearing, the Tribunal was provided an English translation of the questions asked by the first named applicant and part of the response given. Some of the questions asked by the first named applicant are as follows:
[Applicant]
What is the position of Egypt as far as external security and at the borders and is the current volatile security situation has any effect in any way whether directly or indirectly in the protection of the state borders. Do you also think that there is an intervention by a foreign power or foreign persons whether material or spiritual in support of the military coup? (sic)
[Armed forces speaker]:
The current Egyptian internal front is very weak and volatile is a good expression and accordingly any external power could have an influence.
[Applicant]:
[Name,] if you were appointed the Minister of Interior what would your immediate or later on decisions to develop and improve the relationship between the people and the police?
[Armed forces speaker]:
The police is having a big problem created successfully by Habib AL ADLY (Minister of Interior) and that is he completely discharged all respected police force personnel.
I was also surprised as General Mansour Allssawi (current Minister of Interior) said that current police officers are not of good level.
The Tribunal also has before it what appears to be a television news reporter reporting on the conference organized by the [Group 1].
The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant was involved in the [Group 1]. The Tribunal accepts that he invited friends, neighbours and co-workers to join the Movement. The Tribunal accepts that the [Group 1] organized a conference that the press reported on. The Tribunal does not accept that the [Group 1] was a political party or that one of its goals was to oppose the military establishment. The Tribunal is of the view that the first named applicant has embellished the nature of [Group 1] and its importance and exaggerated his role in this [group]. The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant has a political profile because of his involvement with the [Group 1] or his role in the conference/s organized by [Group 1] or that he is or will be of adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities for these reasons.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that he and his friend [Mr A] joined the FJP but did not join the Muslim Brotherhood. He claimed that they worked with the FJP in matters relating to the administration of the people’s revolution. He claimed that besides providing social services, he contracted with the hospitals to do cheaper medical operations that were sometimes free for those who are unable to pay for those services. He claimed that he had a special role, was responsible for the suburb of [Suburb 1] where he lived and was the co-ordinator for exhibitions, the maintenance of food, medical and substantial services. He claimed that he was responsible for the management of conferences and political gatherings and his role was to liaise with important people in Egypt including journalists and politicians and invite them to meetings that were broadcast on TV. He claimed that some of the conferences he hosted with high-ranking party members were broadcast on different TV channels.
The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015. It indicates that, during his interview with the Department [in] February 2015, he initially claimed that he joined the FJP after he left the [Group 1] in August 2011. He subsequently claimed that he joined the FJP on 19 June 2011. During the hearing, he gave a third version and stated that he joined the FJP on 6 June 2011. He stated that he joined as an ordinary member but later became “superior”. When asked whether he was elected to or appointed to any position within the FJP, he answered no. This is not consistent with his claim in his visa application that he had a special role in the FJP. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise concerns about the credibility of his claims in relation to the FJP.
In his visa application and during the hearing the first named applicant gave evidence that he did not become a member of the MB. When asked why he did not, he responded that religion and politics should not be mixed. He stated that religion is sacred but in politics you have tactics and strategies and do not have to be honest all the time. He stated that the FJP was not managed by the MB. He stated that the MB provided subsidised food and medication to people and operations and hospital services for the poor. Despite his claim that he was not a member of the MB and the FJP was not managed by the MB, he stated that he was responsible for providing food, medication, gas bottles and stationery for education purposes to people in his suburb. He stated that he was responsible for dealing with hospitals in his area and co-ordinating between people in his suburb and his supervisor to assess who had priority for medical operations.
The Tribunal finds it implausible that the first named applicant, as an ordinary member of the FJP (or an ordinary “superior” member of the FJP), who was not a member of the MB, would be involved in activities carried out by the MB particularly in view of his evidence that the FJP was not managed by the MB. The Tribunal also finds it implausible that as an ordinary member of the FJP (or an ordinary “superior” member of the FJP), who was not a member of the MB, he would have the power and authority to enter into contracts with the hospitals to provide cheaper or free medical operations for those who were unable to pay for those services, co-ordinate exhibitions, the maintenance of food, medical and substantial services and be responsible for the management of conferences and political gatherings for the FJP as he claims.
The Tribunal finds it implausible that the first named applicant, as an ordinary member of the FJP (or an ordinary “superior” member of the FJP), would have been given the role of liaising with important people in Egypt including journalists and politicians, inviting them to meetings that were broadcast on TV and hosting high-ranking party members who were broadcast on different TV channels as he claims. The Tribunal is of the view that he has fabricated these claims and the nature of his role and involvement in the FJP.
The first named applicant provided to the Department a copy of a document which he claimed was his FJP Membership Card. During the hearing, he gave evidence that he destroyed the card but photocopied it and uploaded it “to the cloud” before he did.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that on 28 June 2013 he participated in a demonstration at Rabaa Square and he and his friend [Mr A] managed parts of this demonstration. He claimed that when violence broke out and demonstrators were injured, he and [Mr A] were active in helping the injured to get medical assistance. He claimed that during this period he used to meet with high-ranking leadership at Rabaa Square to obtain instructions about the management of the protests. He claimed that on 16 August 2013 there was another demonstration in Ramses Square and he took part in that demonstration. He claimed that security forces attacked the demonstrators and he was injured in his head but he and [Mr A] managed to escape. He claimed that [in] October 2013 he participated in another demonstration. He claimed that the security forces again used force to end the demonstration. He claimed that he was shot and was carried away bleeding from his back and leg.
During the hearing, the first named applicant gave evidence that when he was at the demonstration at Ramses Square on 16 August 2013 he was hit in the back of his head by a bottle that was thrown. He stated that he was injured and bleeding but did not seek any medical treatment. He stated that [in] October 2013 he attended another demonstration at Ramses Square. He stated that the Police tried to disperse demonstrators from Ramses Square and were firing guns. He stated that he was hit by shrapnel on his back and leg. He stated that his colleagues helped him to get out of there and he sought medical treatment at a nearby hospital. He stated that the hospital removed the shrapnel and he was not kept there overnight. He stated that he did not attend any further demonstrations or have any further contact with the Egyptian authorities after [October] 2013.
The first named applicant provided to the Department a Report dated [in] February 2015 from the [named] Medical Centre. This Report was prepared by [Doctor A], Mental Health Clinician. It provides the ‘history of persecution and trauma’ given by the first named applicant. It states that he reports that “following a protest rally in July 2013 several friends and he were chased by armed forces. They were captured and beaten. He has witnessed hundreds of people were killed at Rabaa Mosque. On another occasion, he was held for a few hours, some of that time alone. He is aware that he was ‘not himself” at that time and was verbally and physically abused by an armed militia working with the Egyptian’s soldiers.” (sic)
This history provided by the first named applicant to [Doctor A] is not consistent with the claims he made in his visa application or the evidence he gave during his interview with the Department [in] February 2105 or the evidence he gave the Tribunal. In his visa application, he did not claim that he attended a ‘protest rally in July 2013’, or that he was captured by armed forces and beaten or that on another occasion he was held for a few hours, some of that time alone. The Tribunal is of the view that if these events occurred he would have mentioned them in his visa application or during his interview with the Department or during the hearing. When the Tribunal raised this as an issue with him, he responded that he received the Report and gave it to his former migration agent. He stated that if he thought there was something against him in the Report he would have got rid of it. He stated that he is a credible person so he gave it to his former migration agent to give it to the Department. He stated that he told the author of the Report everything and he wrote the Report.
The Tribunal asked the first named applicant if there was any reason why [Doctor A] would have reported a different history to the one he gave him or have fabricated his history in the Report. He responded that he did not know. He stated that he told [Doctor A] what happened, his fears and the situation in Egypt. When asked whether he had any explanation for why his history as indicated in the Report is so significantly different from his claims, he responded that he had no explanation.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that [Doctor A] had any interest or motive in fabricating the history provided by the first named applicant as indicated in his Report nor does the Tribunal accept that he did so. The first named applicant’s failure to make the claims in relation to the matters he reported to [Doctor A] in his visa application, during his interview with the Department [in] February 2015 and during the hearing raise concerns about his credibility, the veracity of those claims and other claims made by him. It also raises the issues of whether the first named applicant provided a fabricated ‘history of persecution and trauma’ to [Doctor A] for the purpose of gathering evidence to support his claims for protection and whether he has fabricated other evidence to support his claims for protection.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that after the incident at the demonstration [in] October 2013 he and his family received telephone calls from unknown people threatening to kill him or torture him and his family unless he stopped his activities against the military regime. He claimed that his family was so scared about the threats that his [Relative A] became hysterical and needed urgent psychiatric treatment. He claimed that his children stopped going to school as they feared for their lives. He claimed that, despite this, he did not stop his campaign because he believed that what had happened in Egypt was unacceptable. During the hearing, he gave inconsistent evidence.
The Tribunal asked the first named applicant whether he had any problems after [October] 2013. He responded that he had problems with the Egyptian authorities as they kept looking for him. He stated that he was in hiding at his [Relative B’s] house. He stated that his home was raided on two occasions and they kept looking for him. He made no mention of receiving any threatening telephone calls. He gave evidence that his children were attending school when he was living with his [Relative B] contrary to his claims in his visa application. He also gave evidence that he did not attend any further demonstrations after [October] 2013 contrary to his claims in his visa application that he did not stop his campaign. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise further concerns about the veracity of his claims.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that on [a date in] September 2013 he received a telephone call from his friend [Mr A’s] wife wanting to know if [Mr A] was with him as she was concerned. He claimed that he made a number of telephone calls to ascertain [Mr A’s] whereabouts. He claimed that someone he knows received a telephone call from [Mr A’s] mobile telephone stating that [Mr A’s] body was found lying on the ground covered in blood and with torture marks clearly visible on his body. He claimed that he contacted the hospital by telephone and was informed that [Mr A] had passed away as a result of the beating and torture he suffered. He claimed that he later found out that [Mr A] was stopped in the street and arrested by the military who tortured him. During the hearing, he gave a different version of events.
The first named applicant gave evidence that a work colleague of [Mr A’s] received a telephone call from someone who had found [Mr A] on the street, he had been beaten and tortured and he was taken to the hospital. He then stated that [Mr A] was found by an ambulance officer on the street with his body covered in blood. He stated that he informed [Mr A’s] family of this and they contacted the hospital. He stated that he subsequently received a telephone call from a relative of [Mr A’s] to inform him that [Mr A] had passed away after midnight. He stated that [Mr A’] family found out from people on the street that [Mr A] was injured by civilians with machine guns who left him on the street and got into two identical cars. He stated that they were organized. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise further concerns about the veracity of his claims.
The first named applicant provided to the Department a Report from the examining doctor at the [Hospital 1] dated [in] September 2013, a Death Certificate dated [in] September 2013 in relation to [Mr A] and a Coroner’s Report dated [in] December 2013 and [later in] December 2013. There are a number of problems with these documents. The Report from the examining doctor is dated [in] September 2013. It indicates that [Mr A] was transferred by the Police Department to the hospital checkpoint at 1.00 o’clock. It indicates that a medical examination was conducted and they found the following:
There was allegation of assault, after performing the medical examination and the x- ray we found that there are some fractures in the upper forehead above the right eyebrow, there was also many cut wounds in the face and in the forehead, the patient was in a comma (sic), during the CPR his heart stopped functioning, CPR resumed for the heart muscle and lungs but without response, he passed away under the mercy of God, the corps will be transferred to the coroner after 2 hours, under the supervision of the public prosecution.
The Death Certificate, however, indicates that [Mr A name variant] died on [the previous day in] September 2013. It does not indicate the cause of death. The delegate raised as issues the authenticity of these documents and the veracity of the applicant’s claims. In submissions to the Tribunal dated 7 July 2017, the first named applicant responded to the findings in the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015. In relation to the issue of the discrepancy in the date of death in the documents, he stated that the Death Certificate is issued on the date of death regardless of any reports. He stated that “because [Mr A’s] death was as a result of a criminal act and not by natural causes it is possible that the Report of the doctor or the hospital were delayed a day or two after the date of death and the Death Certificate issued at the request of the deceased’s parents, accompanied by witnesses and the doctor said the report was issued after more than a day, not only one day.”
This submission is not consistent with the first named applicant’s own evidence. In his visa application, he claimed that on [a date in] September 2013 he received a telephone call from [Mr A’s] wife wanting to know if [Mr A] was with him as she was concerned as it was late, she did not know where he was, it was curfew time and he was not answering his telephone. This tends to indicate that he received this telephone call late on [that day in] September 2013. His evidence to the Tribunal is that, when he found out that [Mr A] had been found on the street injured and was taken to hospital, he contacted his family who then contacted the hospital. He stated that he was subsequently informed by a family member that [Mr A] had passed away after midnight. This tends to indicate that [Mr A] passed away on [the next day] and not [the first specified date in] September 2013 as indicated in the Death Certificate.

The Coroner’s Report indicates that a doctor in the Coroner’s Office conducted a medical check and autopsy on the body of [Mr A] at [time] on [two days after the event]. It indicates ‘First, the public prosecution memorandum – Photo is enclosed’. It is not clear whether this refers to a photocopy of the public prosecution memorandum being enclosed with the Coroner’s Report or a photograph of the body. In any event, neither a copy of the public prosecution memorandum nor a photograph of the body were provided with the English translation of the Coroner’s Report.
The Coroner’s Report provides details of extensive injuries on the body including injuries to [multiple body parts]. This is not consistent with the Report prepared by the examining doctor at the hospital. The only injuries referred to in the Report by the examining doctor at the hospital are in relation to cut wounds on the face and forehead and fractures in the upper forehead above the right eyebrow. The Tribunal is of the view that it is implausible that the examining doctor at the hospital would only provide details of injuries to the patient’s face and not to his body in his Report.
The Coroner’s Report also refers to “many wounds stitched with medical stitches“ on [two parts of the face]. The Report by the examining doctor at the hospital does not indicate that cuts on the patient’s face were stitched. It indicates that CPR was administered and the patient died during CPR. The Tribunal finds it implausible that the examining doctor at the hospital would have stitched the cuts on the patient’s face prior to administering CPR or stitched the cuts on the patient’s face after he died and then not noted this in the Report.
The Coroner’s Report indicates that the bruises observed on the body “occurred by contacting solid surfaces, of whatever kind, such as the use of the sword.” It indicates that part of the goods seized “was a sword used by the accused [named] in the case number [number].” It indicates that “we observe the sword. We conclude that it can cause the above-mentioned injuries.” This is not consistent with the first named applicant’s claims in his visa application that [Mr A] was arrested by the military who tortured him to death or with his evidence to the Tribunal that [Mr A’s] family found out from people on the street that [Mr A] was injured by civilians with machine guns who left him on the street and got into two identical cars. He did not claim in his visa application or give evidence to the Tribunal that [Mr A] had been injured with a sword or that someone had been arrested and charged in relation to his death.
The Coroner’s Report indicates, at the beginning, that an autopsy was conducted [two days after the event]. At the end of the Report, it indicates that it is one day since the autopsy was performed and is dated [in] December 2013. The above problems raise further concerns about the authenticity of these documents and the veracity of the claims made in relation to [Mr A’s] death. In submissions to the Tribunal dated 7 July 2017, the first named applicant responded to the inconsistencies between the Report from the examining doctor at the hospital and the Coroner’s Report as follows “I made copies of the original reports, but (as happened before) many of the reports of the deaths contained incorrect information with the parents being forced to sign on the cause of death from suicide and always be manipulated reports.” This submission makes little sense as there is no suggestion in either Report that the cause of death is suicide. This response does not explain the inconsistencies in the Reports or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns.
In submissions to the Tribunal dated 7 July 2017, the first named applicant responded to the finding by the delegates that his claims in relation to [Mr A’s] death were fabricated because he failed to mention that [Mr A] had been attacked with a sword and a suspect had been accused of the crime. He submitted “the case officer repeatedly said that “we do not have time enough to discuss all the details and let’s move forward.” In addition I did not care at all about the content of Police reports as they are expert in changing facts and falsifying reports. Note the famous case of the Italian student Giulio Regeni, where the Police issued several different and contradictory reports.” This submission again makes little sense.
Firstly, if the first named applicant felt that he did not have sufficient time during his interview with the Department to provide full details, he had the opportunity to do so in his submissions to the Tribunal when he had the assistance of a migration agent and plenty of time to do so. Secondly, if he “did not care at all about the content of Police reports”, it makes no sense that he would then provide Reports to the Department to support his case. Thirdly, the Reports he provided to the Department were not Police reports which he claimed he does not care for. The Reports were from an examining doctor at the hospital and a doctor at the Coroner’s Office. He made no attempt to explain the inconsistencies between these two reports that were prepared by doctors and not the Police.
The above problems cause concerns for the Tribunal in relation to the authenticity of these documents and the credibility of the first named applicant’s claims in relation to [Mr A’s] death.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that, in order to avoid the same fate as [Mr A], he decided that he and his family should escape. He claimed that he left his job and his home and went into hiding at the home of his [Relative B] on [a date in] November 2013. He claimed that his [Relative B] was a former [official] in the Army, still had contact with some of his military colleagues and was able to protect him. During the hearing, he gave evidence that after [Mr A’s] death he feared for his life and the safety of his family. He stated that he feared that what happened to [Mr A] would happen to him too. He stated that he was in shock and deeply fearful. He stated that his wife and children went to live with his [Relative B] while he remained at home. He stated that he later thought it would be better for him to also move to his [Relative B’s] house.
During the hearing, the first named applicant gave evidence that his visa application was prepared on his instructions and he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete with one exception. He stated that he went into hiding in November 2013 and not August 2013 as stated. In fact, in his visa application he did state that he went into hiding on [a date in] November 2013. When asked during the hearing when he moved to his [Relative B’s] house, he responded November 2013. When asked why he continued living at his home until November 2013 if he was afraid he would be killed like [Mr A] was, he responded that he was not sure if it was the Egyptian authorities who killed [Mr A]. He stated that they usually arrested people. He stated that it was the first time that someone was killed in the street. He stated that [Mr A’s] family found out from people in the street that civilians killed [Mr A], some of them were armed with machine guns and they left in two cars that were the same. He stated that they were organised.
The first named applicant’s explanation as to why he delayed leaving his home and moving to his [Relative B’s] home is implausible and makes no sense. The Tribunal is of the view that if he feared suffering the same fate as [Mr A], it would have made no difference to him whether he was killed by the Egyptian authorities or civilians with machine guns. The Tribunal is of the view that if he feared for his life after the death of [Mr A] in mid-August 2013, he would have gone into hiding immediately and not waited until November 2013 to do so. His conduct is not consistent with his claims and this raises concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims.
In his Statement of Claims, the first named applicant claimed that he left his job and went into hiding on [a date in] November 2013. However, in his visa application, which he stated is accurate, he stated that he worked at [Company 1] from January 2007 until August 2014 which is when he was granted a visa to come to Australia. The Tribunal raised this inconsistency as an issue with him and noted that it raised concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims. He responded that he continued working from home. The Tribunal finds this response to be disingenuous and does not accept it.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that his father told him that the Police and intelligence agents raided his house, told him that he was going to be arrested, his name was added to the list of people that the government wanted to punish, that he was prohibited from leaving Egypt, that they had evidence against him, that they had photographs showing him in Rabaa Square with leaders and at gatherings and conferences which he organised against the government. During the hearing, he gave a different version of events. He stated that a neighbour told his father in February 2014 that some civilians broke into his house, stayed awhile and then left. He stated that he was informed that some of them had machine guns.
The first named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his father checked his house and found broken things in his house. He stated that his father went to the Police Station to report the break-in and spoke to the Police Chief. He stated that the Police Chief said he had no idea about this but knew that another Department was searching for him. He stated that the Police Chief said it was better for him to give himself up because the authorities were looking for him as they had a photograph of him with high-ranking people from the FTP taken at Tahrir Square and may put his name on the watch list at the airport. He stated that his father received a telephone call in May 2014 informing him that his house had been broken into again. He stated that his father did not go to the Police on this occasion. He stated that there has been no further contact with the Egyptian authorities since May 2014
Following the hearing, the first named applicant provided to the Tribunal an undated document titled ‘Statutory Declaration’ purportedly from his father, [named]. There are a number of inconsistencies between the evidence in this document and the evidence given by the first named applicant during the hearing. For instance, his father states that his apartment was raided and searched twice by Police forces. His evidence is that the raids were conducted by civilians some of whom were armed with machine guns. His father states that the Police Chief informed him that the National Security Agency were looking for him because they had photographs of him at the sit in at Rabia Square with leading figures in the MB and FJP and his name was on the travel ban list. His evidence is that the Police Chief said the authorities had photographs of him at Tahrir Square and that his name may be put on the watch list at the airport.
The first named applicant gave evidence that his parents came to Australia about seven or eight months before the hearing. He stated that his parents have also applied for Protection visas and their application is pending. He made a number of claims in his visa application that involved his father. Issues were clearly raised by the delegate in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims in the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015. He has been represented by migration agents throughout the process of his application for Protection visas. He attended the hearing with a migration agent who is an experienced immigration lawyer. The Tribunal would expect that, if his father was in Australia prior to the hearing and was able to provide corroborating evidence to support his claims, he would have provided the Tribunal with a written statement from his father prior to the hearing and his father would have attended the hearing where he could have given oral evidence and had his evidence tested by the Tribunal. However, he did not do so.
The first named applicant gave evidence that one of his brothers and his family live in Australia. Following the hearing, he provided the Tribunal with an undated statement from his [brother]. In his statement, his brother stated that he is a member of the FTP, a political activist and participated in the Egyptian revolution and the Rabia Square sit-ins as well as anti-coup demonstrations in Egypt. He stated that in Australia he regularly participates in demonstrations against the military coup and Sisi’s rule. He has not provided any evidence in relation to his source of knowledge particularly when he was living in Australia at the time he states that the first named applicant was participating in various activities in Egypt.
The first named applicant’s father and brother are not independent witnesses and have a vested interest in the outcome of his visa application. In view of the Tribunal’s concerns referred to herein, the Tribunal places little weight on the evidence given by his father and brother.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that he left his job and his home and went into hiding at the home of his [Relative B] on [a date in] November 2013. He claimed that his [Relative B] was a former [official] in the Army, still had contact with some of his military colleagues and was able to protect him. This is not consistent with his claims that the security forces did not stop looking for him, they sent an agent to speak to his neighbours and work colleagues and raided his house on two occasions [in] February 2014 and [in] May 2014. During the hearing, he changed his evidence and stated that he did not leave his job in November 2013 but continued working from home for the same employer.
The Tribunal is of view that, if the Egyptian authorities were aware of his identity, where he lived and worked and were looking for him, they would have been able to locate him through his employer or his relatives. Further, his evidence is that his wife worked in an organisation that worked for the military. He claimed that she was fired from her job [in] August 2014. The Egyptian authorities would therefore have been able to locate him through his wife’s employer. The fact that the Egyptian authorities did not locate him, despite his claims that they did not stop looking for him, and had the means to do so raises further concerns about the credibility of his claims.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the first named applicant its doubts that he was of adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities and that they were looking for him. He responded that there are 4050 Army officers and 450 Police officers and 5 million members of the FJP. He stated that if they wanted to find someone they would start at the higher ranking officers first and then the level under that. This response does not alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. The Tribunal noted that he continued working for the same employer and his wife continued working for an employer that worked for the military. The Tribunal noted that, if the Egyptian authorities were unable to locate him at his home, the next most obvious place to look for him would be at the home of his parents or parents-in-law.
The first named applicant responded that neither he nor his wife are famous and people on the street and at his wife’s workplace do not know that he was at Rabaa Square. The Tribunal reminded him that the issue was whether or not the Egyptian authorities were looking for him. The Tribunal noted that according to his claims the Egyptian authorities are aware of his identity and where he lived and worked. The Tribunal noted that they would have been able to locate him through this information. He responded that people hide in the homes of people in authority and no one can search their homes. He stated that everything in Egypt is managed by the authorities.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that his friend [Mr A] was tortured and killed in September 2013. He claimed that he was killed because [Mr A] and he shared the dream to create a better and fairer society. He claimed that he feared that he would suffer the same fate as [Mr A] and went into hiding. He claimed that the Egyptian authorities were looking for him to arrest him and punish him. He claimed that he and his family were threatened. He claimed that his [Relative A] needed urgent psychiatric treatment. He claimed that his children stopped going to school. However, their passports indicate that he and his family had valid visas to travel to [Country 2] but did not use these visas to get out of Egypt. The [Country 2] visas were valid from [April] 2010 to [April] 2015.
The Tribunal raised this as an issue with the first named applicant and noted that, if [Mr A] was killed in September 2013 and he feared the same fate, he would have got out of Egypt as soon as possible after that. The Tribunal noted that his son is a citizen of [Country 2] and that he and the rest of his family could have applied for permanent residence in [Country 2]. The Tribunal noted that this was his quickest and easiest option to get out of Egypt but he did not use it. The Tribunal noted that this raised concerns about the credibility of his claims. He responded that people in the FJP are targeted and the Police are searching for them. He stated that even now they are arresting them and killing them. He stated that [Country 2] was not his first option for travel because he did not know anyone there and has three children. He questioned who would help him until he was able to find a job. He stated that [Country 2] supported Mr Sisi and [equipment] made in [Country 2] were used during the demonstrations. He stated that there were Egyptian people in [Country 2] who supported what happened in Rabaa Square and he feared this. He stated that Australia was a better option for him as he has a brother who lives here.
The Tribunal is of the view that if the first named applicant genuinely feared for his life and the lives of his wife and three children, the issue for him would have been whether he and his family would be safe from harm in [Country 2] and not what country he would prefer to live in. The Tribunal is of the view that if his claimed fears were genuine he would have used the first available option to leave Egypt. The Tribunal is of the view that if he had made enquiries or done some research he would have ascertained that he could have sought asylum in [Country 2] (just as he did in Australia). His failure to leave Egypt and travel to [Country 2] raise further concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
In his visa application, the first named applicant claimed that his [Relative B] passed away [in] August 2014. He claimed that he decided to hide in another place in [Area 1]. He claimed that [later in] August 2014 his wife was fired from her job for “security reasons”. He claimed that he then decided to leave Egypt but was prohibited from travelling outside Egypt. He claimed that he made arrangements with the assistance of a friend, applied to the Australian Embassy for [temporary] visas and left Egypt [in] October 2014. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015 which indicates that he first applied for [temporary] visas to come to Australia [in] July 2014 and his application was refused. He then reapplied for [temporary] visas [in] August 2014 and his application was granted. Both his applications for [temporary] visas were filed before his wife was fired from her job [in] August 2014. This is not consistent with his claim in his visa application that he decided to leave Egypt after she was fired from her job.
The Tribunal put this information to the first named applicant and noted that the timing of his applications for [temporary] visas was not consistent with his claims that he decided to leave Egypt after his wife was fired from her job [in] August 2014. The Tribunal noted that this raised concerns about the credibility of his claims. He responded that coming to Australia was a Plan B. He stated that his brother kept telephoning him from Australia and encouraging him to obtain visas to come to Australia. When asked why coming to Australia was a Plan B and getting out of Egypt was not a Plan A, he responded that he left Egypt a month after this. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2015 which indicates that he and his family were granted [temporary] visas to travel to Australia [in] August 2014 but did not arrive in Australia until [October] 2014.

The Tribunal put this information to the first named applicant and raised as an issue with him the fact that his delay in leaving Egypt after he and his family were granted [temporary] visa was not consistent with his claims that he feared for his life and the lives of his family members after his [Relative B’s] death [in] August 2014. The Tribunal noted that this raised concerns about the credibility of his claims. He responded that he was in the middle of unprecedented life events. He stated that he had to organise to get out of the airport and needed money. He stated that he needed money to bribe the officer at the airport and for his travel to Australia. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation.
Firstly, the first named applicant first applied for [temporary] visas to travel to Australia [in] July 2014. The Tribunal is of the view that he would not have applied for [temporary] visas [in] July 2014 if he did not have the money, or the means to obtain the money, to pay for his travel and the travel of his family members to Australia at that time. Secondly, in his visa application he claims that he asked one of his friends who had a friend in the Police to assist him to facilitate their exit from Cairo and negotiated the amount of the bribe and when it had to be paid. He claimed that after that he applied to the Australian Embassy for the [temporary] visas. This indicates that he was aware of how much he had to pay in a bribe and when it had to be paid before he applied for the [temporary] visas. The Tribunal is of the view that it is implausible that he would have applied for the [temporary] visas if he did not already have the money, or the means to obtain the money, to pay for the bribes at the time he applied for the [temporary] visas.
Thirdly, the first named applicant and his wife have family members in Egypt and he has a brother in Australia. His parents were able to obtain the funds for their travel to Australia. The Tribunal is of the view that if his life and the lives of his wife and three children were at risk he would have sought financial assistance from his family members and his wife’s family members to be able to leave Egypt as soon as possible. His actions are again not consistent with his claims and raise issues about the credibility of his claims.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the first named applicant its doubts that he was involved with the FJP. He responded that the delegate also raised this concern. He stated that he was speaking the truth. He said he was trying to get the facts in chronological order and made mistakes. He stated that he was under pressure.
The Tribunal has considered the other supporting material provided by the first named applicant. He has provided to the Department two DVDs. They contain what appears to be television news reports of a gunfight between armed civilians and the Police, speakers at protest rallies, protest marches in the streets, people praying, people gathered in the street with an ambulance collecting injured people and violent protests with the sound of gunfire and sirens in the background. One of the segments on a DVD appears to be of the conference organized by the [Group 1] and shows the first named applicant and others asking the speakers questions. The Tribunal asked the first named applicant to provide English translations of any evidence that he wished the Tribunal to consider.
Following the hearing, the Tribunal was provided with an English translation of the questions asked by the first named applicant and the responses (referred to in paragraph 28 above). However, no English translations were provided in relation to the rest of the contents of the DVDs nor was any information provided in relation to when and where the events depicted in the DVDs took place or who took the videos. The Tribunal has also considered the bundles of photographs provided by the first named applicant. Some of them show him with friends in large crowds of people at what appears to be demonstrations. The photographs show him carrying an infant, sleeping under a make shift shelter, the infant is in the makeshift shelter and him carrying an Egyptian flag.
One of the photographs provided is an aerial photograph showing the large crowd gathered at a protest. There are also a number of graphic photographs of burned bodies and injured people. When asked about these photographs, the first named applicant stated that he obtained photographs from colleagues and from the internet. When asked why these photographs were provided to the Department, he responded that he wanted to show the Department what happened. When asked how this assists his case, he responded that he obtained them to show what happened and he had seen such things. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in relation to who took these photographs, when they were taken and where they were taken. The Tribunal places no weight on these photographs.
The Tribunal has had regard to the flash drive provided by the first named applicant. It contains electronic copies of the documents he had previously provided. It contains videos in relation to the [Group 1] which are referred to above. It contains videos that the first named applicant claims to have taken on his mobile telephone. It shows large crowds of people demonstrating. There is no evidence of violence in any of these videos. It also contains part of a discussion in relation to foreign aid provided by the USA to Egypt. Some of the speakers are critical of the Sisi government.
The Tribunal has considered the first named applicant’s political activities in Australia. During the hearing, he gave evidence that he has attended demonstrations with people from the MB or FJP at [Suburb 3] in 2014, [Suburb 2] in 2015 and [city location 1] in 2017. When asked what he or the organisers of these demonstrations were hoping to achieve, he responded that they wanted to make the Australian government aware that what happened in Egypt is murder and a military coup. When asked whether he thought the Australian government was not aware of what happened in Egypt, he responded that they are trying to do their part to support families of the people who were injured or killed and to say that they will not forget. He stated that they are not going to give up their cause or their political stance.
The Tribunal asked the first named applicant whether he was aware that democratic elections had been held in Egypt in 2015. He responded that he was. When asked what his cause and political stance is if democracy has been restored in Egypt, he responded that this is the media. He stated that there is no democracy over the killing of people, the arresting of more than 50,000 people and the shutting down of TV channels. When asked what he was hoping to achieve from Australia, he responded that he wanted them to return to legitimacy. When asked how he was going to do that from Australia, he responded that they have a message to deliver to the people that democracy cannot be achieved through the Army. He stated that they have been filmed and are on [social media]. He stated that every country has a similar organisation.
The first named applicant has provided to the Tribunal a number of photographs which he claims were taken at demonstrations he attended in Australia at [Suburb 3] [in] November 2014, [Suburb 2] [in] January 2015 and [city location 1][in] January 2017. The photographs show him at these demonstrations. He claims that the demonstration at [city location 1] was outside the Egyptian embassy. The Tribunal notes that the demonstration took place on a Sunday and that the office of the Consulate-General of the Arab Republic of Egypt is not open on Sundays.[1] He has also provided photographs of a man which appear to have been taken whilst he was on a television programme with [an Australian] background. He stated that he took these photographs to show that this man is “high ranking”. He also provided a photograph of him with this man in front of a house.
[1] [Deleted].
The Tribunal informed the first named applicant of the provisions of s.91R(3) of the Act and raised as an issue with him its concerns in relation to his motivation for engaging in political activities in Australia. He responded that his participation in demonstrations in Australia is real and genuine and based on his beliefs and principles.
The Tribunal discussed with the first named applicant what he thought was likely to happen if he returned to Egypt. He responded that the Egyptian authorities will figure out that he left Egypt unlawfully and he will be charged in relation to that matter. He stated that his passport has now expired and he will be asked how he was able to stay in Australia with an expired passport. He stated that they will figure out that he has applied for asylum from the length of his stay in Australia. He stated that he will be charged in relation to that. When asked if he had any other concerns about returning to Egypt, he responded that his name is on the watch list and he will be asked how he got out. He stated that his passport has expired and he will be questioned about how he stayed in Australia for almost 3 years without a work contract. When asked if there was any other reason why he feared returning to Egypt, he stated that his name is on the watch list and he will be asked how he got out of Egypt and his passport has expired and he will be asked how he was able to stay in Australia for almost 3 years without a work contract. He did not mention any other fears or concerns.
Following the hearing, the first named applicant provided to the Tribunal a Statutory Declaration dated 17 July 2017 from [Mr B], President of [Organisation 1]. He stated that the first named applicant is a regular participant in demonstrations in Australia against the military coup in Egypt, against Mr Sisi’s rule and his government and in support of the return of legitimacy by the return of former President Mahmoud Morsi. He stated that he is an active member on the [Organisation 1] [social media] page and has many photographs of himself on [that] page. He stated that the [Organisation 1] [social media] page is monitored by the Egyptian authorities and that he believes that he will face significant harm if he returns to Egypt. He has not indicated how he is aware that the [Organisation 1] [social media] page is monitored by the Egyptian authorities.
The Tribunal has had a look at the [Organisation 1] [social media] page. It contains a large amount of videos and photographs on it. The Tribunal was able to find a photograph and a video of the first named applicant among a group of people participating in a demonstration. The flash drive provided by the first named applicant contains footage of a television reporter who appears to be interviewing people from around the world. The Tribunal has been provided with an English translation of his interview with [Mr B], the President of [Organisation 1] who spoke about the activities undertaken by [their organisation]. There is a no evidence to indicate when this interview took place or what television channel it was shown on or where it was shown.
The first named applicant has provided to the Tribunal copies of two newspaper headlines in relation to the Australian journalist Peter Greste and websites in relation to newspapers articles about Peter Geste being charged and sentenced in Egypt. The Tribunal notes that the first named applicant is not a journalist nor has he claimed to be one in the past.
The first named applicant has provided a video of an interview between a television reporter and Kevin Barrett, an author and political commentator. The reporter asks Kevin Barrett for his views on complimentary comments made by President Trump in relation to President Sisi and he provides his views.
The first named applicant has provided an English translation of an Al-Ahram newspaper article. It is titled ‘Instigation against homeland is a capital treason whose punishment could be execution’. It refers to a solicitor being stripped of his citizenship and comments made about it by legal academics. One of the professors comments that any Egyptian who seeks the protection of a foreign country is committing a serious mistake and deserves to be stripped of his citizenship. Another comments that such action would threaten about ten thousand Egyptians living overseas who might be proven of such treason. No information has been provided of the circumstances in which the solicitor was stripped of his citizenship or when this happened. The Tribunal was unable to find any information about it.
The first named applicant has provided a number of websites in relation to country information on Egypt. The first article is by Amnesty International and refers to seven men being sentences to death for the murder of a Police officer. The second article is in relation to thirty one people being sentenced to death for their part in the assassination of “the country’s top prosecutor.” The third article is by Human Rights Watch and refers to eight men being sentenced to death after a military trial on terrorism charges. The fourth article is from Aljazeera news in relation to an Egyptian Court upholding death sentences handed down to ten men for their part in violence at a football stadium which led to more than seventy fans being killed.
The fifth article is about a man who had used social media to mobilize hundreds of thousands of Egyptians in demonstrations in Tahrir Square, had a high profile nationally and internationally and was charged and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The Tribunal accepts that high profile leaders have been targeted by the Sisi government. In this case, the Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant is a high profile leader and activist. The sixth article is by Human Rights Watch and refers to an Egyptian Criminal Court handing down provisional death sentences against one hundred and eighty eight defendants in relation to an attack on a Police Station that led to eleven Police officers and two civilians being killed. The seventh article is about the increased use of the death penalty under the Sisi government.
The Tribunal has had regard to the Reports dated [in] November 2015 and [in] January 2016 from [Welfare Agency 2] and the letter dated [in] February 2016 from [that agency]. The Report dated [November] 2015 indicates that the first named applicant was referred to [Welfare Agency 2] because he was experiencing stress associated with uncertainty regarding his and his family’s future, difficulties finding work and associated financial difficulties. It indicates that he received treatment between [dates in] September 2015 and [November] 2015. It refers to the history provided by him including that he and his friend were targeted by the military after the overthrow of the Morsi government and his friend was killed by them. This is not consistent with his evidence to the Tribunal in relation to [Mr A’s] death. This inconsistency in the evidence and the other concerns referred to above in relation to the history provided by him to [Doctor A], the author of the Report dated [in] February 2015 from the [named] Medical Centre, raise an issue in relation to what weight the Tribunal can place on this Report.
The Report from [Welfare Agency 2] dated [in] January 2016 indicates the first named applicant received treatment from [November] 2015 to [December] 2015. It is to a large extent similar to the previous Report. It also indicates that during the period of treatment he “began to place greater attention on developing positive goals for himself and his family This primarily took the form of seeking employment in his profession ([occupation 1]) where he experienced success in obtaining interviews and short term work.” It indicates that these changes reflected in improvements in his mental health. The letter dated [in] February 2016 from [Welfare Agency 2] indicates that his file had been closed.
The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility when assessing the first named applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal has also had regard to the DFAT Country Information Report on Egypt and the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

100. DFAT states the following in relation to conditions for returnees:
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) runs a program in Egypt that   assists voluntary returnees, in cooperation with the country from which they are   returning. Egyptian authorities cooperate with the IOM in these arrangements. DFAT   assesses that people who return to Egypt after several years’ absence will not face   any adverse attention on their return due to their absence. Likewise, DFAT asses   that failed asylum seekers will not face adverse attention because of their failed       application for asylum when they return to Egypt.
Egypt accepts involuntary returnees. Egyptian officials generally pay little regard to   failed asylum seekers upon their return to the country, although it is possible that   some individuals will be questioned upon entry, or will have their entry delayed. Many   thousands of Egyptians enter and leave the country every day. Egyptians who out-  stay their work or tourist visas in other countries are regularly returned to Egypt with   no attention paid to them by authorities. DFAT is not aware of failed asylum seekers   being reported by airport authorities to the Ministry of the Interior or any of the   security services beyond the normal processes for returning Egyptian nationals.
DFAT assesses that Egyptian embassies or other officials usually take note of   political activities conducted by Egyptians abroad. However, only particularly high-  profile cases (i.e. those that gain media notoriety in Egypt) are generally of interest to   Egyptian authorities. Lower profile political activists may be questioned on return to   Egypt, but are unlikely to be detained or otherwise mistreated.[2]
[2] DFAT Country Information Report on Egypt, 19 May 2017.

101. In this case, the Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant has a high profile and has gained media notoriety in Egypt. In view of the above country information, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he is at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because of the length of his stay in Australia and/or the fact that he did not have an employment contract in Australia and/or his passport has expired and/or he is a failed asylum seeker.
Findings
102. Having considered all the first named applicant's claims and all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that he is not a witness of truth. The Tribunal finds that he fabricated some of his material claims and embellished others for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.
103. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant was born in Egypt on [date]. The Tribunal accepts that he worked as [occupation 1] in an Egyptian [and Country 1] company called [Company 1]. The Tribunal accepts that he participated in demonstrations on [two dates in] January 2011. The Tribunal does not accept that he was of adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities or civilian militia groups for this reason. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for these reasons.
104. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant was involved with the [Group 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that it was a political party or that its goal was to promote democracy, educate people about civil governance and to oppose the military establishment. The Tribunal accepts that he was involved in organizing a conference [in] June 2011 on security. The Tribunal accepts that the three speakers at that conference were a General in the Army and two high ranking Police officers. The Tribunal accepts that during that conference he asked the speakers some questions. The Tribunal accepts that this conference was reported in the media.

105. The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant managed demonstrations, organized many conferences or published articles in the local newspapers in relation to the [Group 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that he was of adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities or civilian militia groups because of his involvement with the [Group 1]. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future for this reason.
106. The Tribunal has doubts that the first named applicant was a member of the FJP but is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he was an ordinary member of the FJP. The Tribunal does not accept that he played a leadership role or an organizational role or had a “special role” in the FJP. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that. The Tribunal accepts that he was not a member of the MB. The Tribunal does not accept that he was involved in any charitable activities on behalf of the MB or the FJP. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that including that he continued his social and political work after the election in 2011. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm because he was an ordinary member of the FJP if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
107. The Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant participated in the sit-in at Rabaa Square in mid-2013. The Tribunal does not accept that he managed part of these demonstrations or that he had any leadership or organizational role in the demonstrations. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this. The Tribunal does not accept that he participated in any other demonstrations at Ramses Square or, alternatively, at Tahrir Square. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this including that he was injured on two occasions, or that he was chased by armed forces, captured and beaten or that he was detained by armed militia working with the Egyptian soldiers and verbally and physically abused.
108. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm because the first named applicant participated in the sit-in at Rabaa Square if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
109. The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant and his family received telephone calls from unknown people threatening to kill him or torture him and his family unless he stopped his activities against the military regime. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that.
110. The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant’s friend [Mr A] was tortured and killed by the military or, alternatively, by civilians armed with machine guns. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this including that he was in hiding since November 2013. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the documents provided in relation to [Mr A’s] death are authentic documents.
111. The Tribunal does not accept that Police and intelligence agents or, alternatively, civilians (some of whom were armed with machine guns) raided the first named applicant’s house on two occasions. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this. The Tribunal does not accept that the Egyptian authorities have photographs of him at Rabaa square or that they were looking for him to arrest him. The Tribunal does not accept that he was prevented from leaving Egypt or that his name was put on the watch list at the airport. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this. The Tribunal does not accept that his wife was fired from her job for security reasons.
112. The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant was of adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities or civilian militia at the time he left Egypt or that he left Egypt for any of the reasons claimed.
113. The Tribunal accepts that since coming to Australia the first named applicant has attended demonstrations organized by [Organisation 1] at [Suburb 3] [in] November 2014, [Suburb 2] [in] January 2015 and [city location 1] [in] January 2017. The Tribunal accepts that the [Organisation 1] has uploaded a large number of videos and photographs on their [social media] account and that he appears in the background in a few of them. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that he will be identified from them. The Tribunal is not satisfied that his attendance at these demonstrations is otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claims to be a refugee and therefore is required under s.91R(3) of the Act to disregard this conduct in its assessment of his well-founded fear of persecution.
114. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant will become involved in any anti-government political activities, attend demonstrations or wish to do so if he returns to Egypt now or in the foreseeable future.
115. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant is at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because of the length of his stay in Australia and/or the fact that he did not have an employment contract in Australia and/or his passport has expired and/or he is a failed asylum seeker.
116. Having considered all of the first named applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the first named applicant would be at risk of persecution on the grounds of his actual or imputed political opinion or any other Refugees Convention reason if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable              consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a          real risk that he will suffer significant harm
117. The Tribunal has considered the first named applicant’s claims under complementary protection.
118. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the first named applicant is at risk of significant harm, because of his actual or imputed political activities in Egypt, if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal was not satisfied that he will become involved in any anti-government political activities, attend demonstrations or wish to do so if he returns to Egypt now or in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that he is at risk of significant harm if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because of the length of his stay in Australia and/or the fact that he did not have an employment contract in Australia and/or his passport has expired and/or he is a failed asylum seeker.
119. The Tribunal is mindful that s.91R(3) of the Act does not apply with respect to conduct in the context of complementary protection. The Tribunal has considered whether there is a real risk of significant harm to the first named applicant, because of his political activities in Australia, if he returns to Egypt now or in the foreseeable future. The Tribunal has accepted that he has participated in three demonstrations organized by [Organisation 1], that [Organisation 1] has uploaded a large number of videos and photographs on their [social media] account and that he appears in the background in a few of them. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will be identified from them. However, even if he is identified by the Egyptian authorities the country information from DFAT referred to above indicates that only particularly high-profile cases who gain media notoriety in Egypt are generally of interest to the Egyptian authorities.
120. The Tribunal has not accepted that the first named applicant has a high profile and has gained media notoriety in Egypt. The Tribunal does not accept that he is a high profile activist in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that he knows [Mr B], President of [Organisation 1], and another man who have been interviewed on television. However, the Tribunal does not accept that he is at risk of significant harm because of his association with [Mr B] or the other man if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
121. The Tribunal has considered the country information provided by the first named applicant (referred to above). They indicate that the Sisi government has been targeting journalists, terrorists and people involved in violent and serious crimes and that sentences involving the death penalty have increased under the Sisi government. Some of the reports raise concerns about due process in relation to the trials of those sentenced to death. The article from the Al-Ahram newspaper in relation to a solicitor being stripped of his citizenship contains no information about the circumstances and only refers to comments made by academics about it. The Tribunal is unable to place much weight on it.
122. One of the articles provided by the first named applicant refers to the man who had used social media to mobilize hundreds of thousands of Egyptians in demonstrations in Tahrir Square, had a high profile nationally and internationally and was charged and sentenced to three years imprisonment. The Tribunal accepts that high profile leaders have been targeted by the Sisi government. In this case, the Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant is a high profile leader or activist.
123. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, that the death penalty will be carried out on him, that he will be subjected to torture, that he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or that he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment as defined. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the first named applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in subsection s.36(2A) of the Act.
124. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
125. The Tribunal finds that the first named applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
126. There is no suggestion that the first named applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the first named applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
127. As the first named applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and does not hold a Protection visa, the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants are unable to satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act. Accordingly, the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants do not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
128.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Linda Symons
Member

[2017] AATA 2365

6 September 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction