1517860 (REFUGEE)

[2017] AATA 677

1517860 (REFUGEE) [2017] AATA 677 (24 MARCH 2017)

1. DECISION RECORD

   DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

   CASE NUMBER:  1517860

   COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

   MEMBER:Peter Vlahos

   DATE:24 March 2017

   PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

   Statement made on 24 March 2017 at 4:39pm

   CATCHWORDS
   Refugee – Protection visa – Egypt – Religion – Coptic Christian – Particular social group – Christian women – Attack on family members – Employment discrimination – Education – Corruption of public officials – Proselytising Muslim children – State protection

   LEGISLATION
   Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 91R(1)(b), 499
   Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2

   CASES
   Guo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1996) 64 FCR 151
   MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
   Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
   Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347
   Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547

   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

2. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

3. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa [in] March 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] December 2015.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 January 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented at the hearing in relation to this review by her registered migration agent.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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’).

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Country of Nationality and Identity

11. Based on the copy of the passport of the applicant, which was provided to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the ‘Department’), the applicant’s oral and written evidence, and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of the Arab Republic of Egypt (hereinafter ‘Egypt’) and assessed her claims against that country in relation to ss. 36(2)(a) and 36 (2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth, as amended). On the basis of the above-mentioned evidence, the Tribunal further accepts her identity as claimed.

12. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant. The Tribunal also has had regard to material referred to in the delegate’s decision. The applicant provided a copy of the departmental record of decision to the Tribunal with her review application.

13. The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant and for the reasons that following this decision the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Background

14. The applicant is [an age] year old married female from [City 1], Egypt. She is a Coptic Orthodox Christian and speaks, reads and writes Arabic. She is married to her husband since [year] and has [number] children. One child, [specified] lives in Australia, and [a son] lives with his father in Egypt. The applicant is educated having attained a [qualification] in [subject] at [University 1] and has been employed at the [City 1] Council, in Egypt.

15. [In] November 2013 the applicant applied for a [temporary] visa to visit her [relative] in Australia. Her visa was granted [later in] November 2013, and was for a duration of three months. [In] March 2014 the applicant lodged an application for a Protection Visa (subclass 866). [In] December 2015 the Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused the applicant’s application for Protection visa.

16. On 23 December 2015 the applicant appealed the Department’s refusal to grant a Protection visa to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’).

    The applicant’s claims for Protection

17. The applicant’s claims for protection can be summarised as follows:

    §  She is a practising Coptic Orthodox Christian from [City 1], Egypt.

    §  She experienced discriminatory treatment throughout her schooling. As a result of which, she had to repeat a few years in University and only completed a [qualification] after [extra] years.

    §   

    §  Whilst working for the [City 1] Council the applicant was denied transfer and promotion opportunities due to her religion.

    §  As [an occupation 1] the applicant was appointed to investigate a few controversial [disputes] involving both Muslims and Copts.

    §  In 2009 the [review committee], which consisted of five (5) members including the applicant, reviewed a complaint against a Coptic Christian concerning a [dispute]. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the Coptic [resident]. The [a]pplicant believes that her involvement in the review resulted in her son’s expulsion from University, as one of the complainants was [an official] of the university and taught the [a]pplicant’s son.

    §  In 2013 the [a]pplicant handled another dispute between a Coptic Christian [business] owner and a Muslim [professional] over the Muslim [professional’s] application to open up a [same business] nearby. The [a]pplicant found that the Muslim [professional] had [acted illegally] [details deleted].

    §  The applicant’s preliminary finding antagonized the Muslim [professional], whose [relative] was a well-connected [official]. The [a]pplicant’s husband’s [business] was attacked a day later. The [a]pplicant reported the intimidation to her manager and did not feel supported. She then requested to be removed from the case. The [new business] was eventually set up.

    §  In October 2013 the [a]pplicant and two of her colleagues were appointed to investigate a request to demolish a building [of a Christian welfare agency]. The [request was based on safety concerns].

    §  Whilst her two colleagues recommended the building to be demolished, the [a]pplicant expressed a dissenting opinion that the [that the safety issues] could be fixed and the building should therefore be retained.

    §  [In] November 2013 the applicant was summoned to appear before [a] prosecutor for the investigation of an accusation that the applicant preached Christianity to underprivileged Muslim girls in the Christian [welfare agency], which the applicant had recommended not be demolished. The [a]pplicant was later advised that her employment was suspended due to this investigation.

    §  One week after the [a]pplicant’s arrival in Australia, the applicant was advised by her husband that the [prosecutor] had decided to prosecute her as soon as she returns to Egypt. The [a]pplicant’s husband and son have moved to Cairo (son attending since [that time a] University in Cairo).

    §  The applicant fears that she will be prosecuted and wrongfully convicted on false allegations against her should she return to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

18. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether she wished to add, vary or change her claims as submitted in her application for Protection visa and the Tribunal was told she had no further claims to make.

19. The applicant’s representative and registered migration agent provided the following submission to the Tribunal on 30 January 2017:

    §  The applicant’s son and husband are residing in Egypt and they did go through very hard and critical times and there is a very important incident that took place against her son, [named]

    §  The applicant’s son was attacked around November 2016. The attack took place while he was staying at [his] accommodation close to his university and on that night he was on his way to [shops] when a motorbike with two people approached him suddenly with their faces covered and when they were very close to him he [the applicant’s son] heard his name and he saw them approaching but he ran. And some time he heard gun shots they missed him and he ran away between the streets.

    §  The incident was not reported to the police because of the applicant’s husband feared that the son’s movements were being monitored and that this might trigger more attacks

    §  In another incident that  took place in December 2016 the applicant’s lawyer was asked to provide certain files which the applicant had retained in her possession when she left work which related to decisions classified as irregularities. The applicant’s representative said that the applicant had linked the request for these files to a corruption case involving high ranking people and he produced media reports in Arabic which he said related to this case as well as a map and a satellite image of the relevant area of [City 1].

    §  The applicant’s representative also produced a statement in Arabic (together with a translation) referring to attacks on Christian women in Egypt and to accusations that Muslim clerics in Egypt encouraging such attacks and do not condemn ISIS (Daesh).

    Evidence provided to the Tribunal at the Hearing held on 31 January 2017

    The applicant’s education at school, secondary and university level

20. The applicant impressed the Tribunal as an educated female Egyptian national. The Tribunal was told that the applicant had resided in [City 1], Egypt for most of her life, was of the Coptic Orthodox faith which she practiced and had been educated at university level in Egypt having entered [University 1] in [year] as an undergraduate studying for a [qualification] in [subject] which she successfully completed in [year]. Her studies took longer because of the ‘discrimination’ against Coptic Christians which prevailed at all levels of the education system in Egypt. The applicant recounted instances of this discrimination she encountered while growing up in Egypt which occurred even at primary school level. At one stage, the Tribunal was told non-Muslim religion classes for Coptic Christians were held outside the proper classrooms of the school whereas Muslim religious classes were conducted in classrooms. Again, at high school, the applicant recalled that because of her religion and beliefs she was at times singled out in class and ridiculed in front of her classmates even though she was considered a ‘smart student’.

21. At University during the years of the Presidency of the late, Anwar Sadat, the applicant experienced a relaxed atmosphere in her learning but the feeling of discrimination and the potential damage it could do to her studies and future was never far from the applicant’s mind. Indeed, the applicant claimed that she would have completed her [qualification] in the proper time allowed but did not do so because of the prejudice against Coptic Christians. The applicant told the Tribunal the pressures on her because of this prejudice were enormous, for example, in [her] Faculty at her university at her time of attendance, out of 320 students there were only [small number] females and the composition of [that number of] females was – [half] Christians and [half] Muslims. With such a ratio in numbers, the university education system always titled in favour of Muslim students, the Tribunal was told. Following her graduation from university in [year], the applicant joined the [City 1] Council as its employee and worked in the Council’s [specified] department. Her responsibilities concerned [specified] issues in the rural districts of the [City 1].

    Applicant’s work on the [City 1] Council

22. According to the applicant her responsibility as an employee of the City government was as [an occupation 1] and [in resolving disputes]. The applicant told the Tribunal that during her employment with the Council’s [specified] department she witnessed many instances of official corruption in the decision-making process of the Council. On some occasions (but the applicant was not specific) she was told to sign-off on [resolutions] concerning [disputes for] officials which she refused to do. However, her refusals were a pretext to be treated by her employer (the City) (the ‘[City 1] Council [Government]’) ‘dreadfully’ and ‘harshly.’ The Tribunal asked the applicant to describe this harsh treatment. The Tribunal was told that by harsh treatment the applicant meant ‘inappropriate words’ being levelled at her by her superiors and colleagues and penalties. The penalties levelled against the applicant were instances of ‘banning’ any reward of an ‘allowance’ and arbitrary ‘deduction of money in her salary…’ The worst punishment was the constant ‘bad-mouthing’ as was described by the applicant to the Tribunal of the applicant by the Council’s officials which undermined her ability to function properly and led her to deep periods of depression. However, the applicant persisted in her work.

    The 2009 Incident

23. In 2009, the applicant was directed by her employer (the Council) to participate as a member of a five (5) member panel – [a review committee] to review a complaint against a Coptic Christian which involved [a dispute]. The dispute involved a Christian Copt [business] owner and a Muslim [business] owner in close proximity of each other. The Muslim wanted to establish a rival [business] in close proximity to the already established Christian one but the [specified locations] did not allow this (according to the applicant). After closer examination of the City’s [records] the applicant determined that the Christian was correct in his position and that the Muslim was attempting through inappropriate means to gain an advantage. The applicant made her views known to the head of staff responsible in her Council and was targeted.

24. The applicant told the Tribunal that as a result of her disapproval of what transpired with this [dispute] between the two applicants she experienced reprisals which affected her son, who was attending [a named University] and studying for a [qualification] in [subject]. According to the applicant her son was accepted to study at university after achieving a high admission score. However, as a result of his mother’s work at the [City 1] Council in the [dispute] between a Christian and Muslim, her son was ‘deliberately failed’. The explanation provided by the applicant was confused but as the Tribunal understood it, the Muslim owner of the land had a particular relationship with her son’s [teacher] and through an exchange of money the applicant’s son was failed. This conclusion was arrived at by the applicant because she saw the Muslim owner of the land conversing with her son’s [teacher] prior to a meeting of the academic review committee which had the responsibility for her son’s academic future.

    October 2013 – the [welfare agency] incident

25. In October 2013, the applicant and two of her colleagues were appointed by the Council to investigate a request to demolish a building [of a] Christian [welfare agency]. The Tribunal was told that a claim was made to the Council because of [safety concerns] of the building in question and water leakages, the said building should be demolished as it posed danger to nearby properties. The applicant told the Tribunal that she personally inspected the building and determined that it was structurally sound except that it needed certain ‘repairs’ but no ‘demolition’ was necessary. However, this put her at odds with her two colleagues who also inspected the same building and determined that it should be demolished as it was structurally unsound in their opinion. Indeed, the two inspectors involved, the applicant described them to the Tribunal as ‘Muslims’ who were doing the bidding of Muslim ‘property’ owners in the immediate area where the Christian [agency] was situated.

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she would not refuse such an appointment to a religiously biased [panel] given her previous experiences. The applicant’s response was that she ‘…tried her best to refuse these appointments but her representations were ignored by her immediate superiors. Moreover, the applicant told the Tribunal that her superiors always prefaced their demands made of her to do a particular project by ‘threats’ and ‘certain types of behaviour’. These ‘certain types of behaviour’ which her superiors used to convince her were described by the applicant as (1) she was never recommended for a higher promotion at a managerial level despite her years’ of experience as [an occupation 1] (2) she would always be harassed and unkind and hurtful references would be made by colleagues about her gender and religion and (3) she always felt undermined because her mistakes would always be given attention in front of her work colleagues.

    November 2013 – proselytization accusation incident

27. [In] November 2013 the applicant was summoned to appear before [a] prosecutor for the investigation of an accusation that the applicant had preached Christianity to underprivileged Muslim girls [at] the Christian [welfare agency], which the applicant had recommended not be demolished. The applicant also told the Tribunal that her employment with [City 1] Council had been suspended due this investigation by the [prosecutor]. The situation as described to the Tribunal had deteriorated and the applicant ‘was surprised she had been suspected of such actions’ when she was only trying to do her work. She wasted no time in making arrangements for the issue of her passport and visa to leave for Australia which she managed to do – departing Egypt in January 2014. In order to protect her reputation and rights the applicant, told the Tribunal, she engaged a Christian lawyer and had assigned her rights to instruct that lawyer to her husband who remained in Egypt with her son, who were both living (at that time) in a suburb of Cairo. The applicant told the Tribunal that from January 2014 her ‘name’ had been placed on an ‘airport watch list.’

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether court proceedings had been commenced in the in Egypt concerning these allegations of proselytization. The applicant told the Tribunal that proceedings were pending but did not provide any court documents. When the Tribunal asked the applicant why no court document was available as evidence of these proceedings before the Tribunal, the explanation provided to the Tribunal was ‘…my lawyer advised that whenever he goes to the [court] complex he is denied access…’ to the court files. According to the applicant, each time her lawyer requested her file ‘…he would not get anything…’ The reason for this inability for her representative to access court documents was explained to the Tribunal in the following way namely that a ‘group of prominent families’ had identified the applicant as a person ‘working against their interests’ and would do anything to damage her reputation.

   [Official’s Assignment] and the applicant’s involvement with it

2. The Tribunal was told that the applicant had been extensively involved (prior to her leaving for Australia) in what was described as the ‘[Official’s Assignment]’. This project involved the applicant being appointed to a committee of ‘three’ – (1) Christian (the applicant) and (2) Muslims. The task of this committee was to consider all of the [disputes resolved] for ‘[District 1]t’ and provide a report on whether they were properly [resolved]. The applicant provided a clarification for the Tribunal describing the project not as a personal project of the [Official], but a statutory body established for the purpose to conduct an ‘audit’ of the [resolution] of all [disputes] and [related] decisions in the named district. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she accepted the appointment after having experienced threats, intimidations, harassment and discrimination when involved in other tasks while working for the [City 1] Council. The applicant responded by saying that she had been chosen to work ‘…in a position on a public committee and there was no chance for me to reject such an appointment…’ Her task on this committee was merely to ‘record’ and ‘note’ any ‘[relevant disputes]’ and then to provide them to the statutory authority. It was authority’s secretary that had the task to consider the audit report and to take action if required on matters identified as problematic.  

   Current whereabouts of applicant’s husband and son

3. The Tribunal was told that following a ‘motorcycle incident’ in Cairo involving her son who escaped serious injury which was not reported to the police (because of the prevalent corruption) both her son and the applicant’s husband had found refuge in a [secure location] in [City 1] where they are currently residing and continue to fear to return to the residence in Cairo.

   What would happen if the applicant was to return to Egypt?

4. The applicant told the Tribunal she feared being wrongfully imprisoned or murdered if she was to return to Egypt. Her persecutors were determined and had many resources to make harm possible. Already her husband and son have been forced to flee Cairo, where they lived since her departure from Egypt and both are now in a [secure location]. Egypt does not offer the applicant or her family any safety currently or in the immediate future.

   Post-Hearing submissions by the applicant  

5. The applicant provided the following documents and submission to the Tribunal:

   §  Certificate from [a Coptic organisation] dated [in] February 2017 certifying the applicant’s work as [an occupation 1] dealing with issues between Muslims and Christians.

   §  Letter dated [in] February 2017 from [Leader A] of [Church A in] [City 1] attesting to the applicant’s claims of discrimination in her employment and that her employment involved solving disputes between Christians and Muslims.

   §  Declaration dated [in] January 2014 by [an official] of the [Court 1] that a hearing was listed for [later in] January 2014 in relation to court proceedings against the applicant.

   §  Medical certificate dated [in] February 2017 confirming that the applicant was suffering from [a condition] in November-December 2016.

   §  ‘[Specified message]’ dated [in] November 2013 cautioning the applicant to attend at the [Legal Agency 1] of [City 1] before the [Official 2] [later in] November 2013.

   §  GAN Integrity Inc. report, March 2016 on Egypt – Egypt Corruption Report.

   The submission of the applicant is summarised as follows:

   The applicant attended the Egyptian [Representative in Australia], and requested them to attest as genuine and proper certain documents issue from Egypt’s court justice system and was confronted with the following:

   §Once the [Representative] Officer determined that these documents involved a dispute between a Christian and Muslim the [Officer] began questioning the applicant on the nature of these documents.

   §The [Officer] stated they were not in charge of attesting such documents.

   §The [Officer] did explain that such documents are not allowed for them to attest [because] it affects the reputation of their workplace as well as the country.

   §The applicant tried her best to get all information required by the Tribunal.

   The applicant’s representative also referred to the supporting letters provided by the Coptic Church in Egypt which he submitted proved the applicant’s credibility.

   Country Information - Coptic Christians in Egypt and sectarian violence

6. Coptic Christians comprise some 10 per cent of Egypt's population of 83 million. They are present in most parts of the country and are represented at all levels of society. Copts have access to all levels of education, and are present in most areas of employment. There are prominent and influential Copts in politics, business and the arts. However, Copts have long faced some degree of societal discrimination. Few Copts hold senior positions in institutions such as the military, universities and the public service. There is also sporadic harassment of Christians in some areas, for example targeting women with uncovered hair. Discrimination and prejudice are more of a problem in poorer urban and rural areas.

7. The Egyptian constitution recognizes Christianity, along with Islam and Judaism and grants Copts the same rights and freedoms as other Egyptians.

8. However, Egypt is overwhelmingly a Sunni Muslim country and Egyptian laws and long-standing practices are generally designed to safeguard the majority. The two problems mentioned most frequently as impacting on Christian practice are restrictions on building or repairing churches and the operation of laws banning “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) or inciting sectarian strife”, commonly referred to as blasphemy law.

9. Sectarian tensions have increased in Egypt since the 1970s, due in part to economic problems and to weakening of law and order mechanisms. The resulting outbreaks of sectarian violence have mostly taken the form of vandalism and destruction of property and have occurred mostly in Upper Egypt, although Cairo and Alexandria have also been affected.

10. Egypt has experienced a number of significant changes in recent years. The Mubarak regime was overthrown in January 2011 and replaced with a military council which ruled until elections in June 2012, which were won by Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi's government was removed by the military in July 2013 and replaced with a military dominated interim government which banned the Muslim Brotherhood in December 2013 and arrested between 22,000 and 29,000 Muslim Brotherhood supporters or suspected members, of whom some 7,000 remained in pre-trail detention in July 2014.[1] Elections held in May 2014 saw former defence Minister Abdul Fatah al-Sisi elected President

    [1] Immigration Report pp. 49-50 and Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2015, available at

11. While there is no evidence of a significant increase in sectarian violence during the time Morsi was President, there was an increase in the number of ultra conservative Islamist groups such as Salafist parties and in the frequency of negative and sometimes inflammatory anti-Christian statements which in turn contributed to an increase of threats and attacks on Christian communities in some areas.[2]

    [2] Issues Paper Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christian & State Protection, Department of Immigration and Border Protection 3 March 2012 [Immigration Report] pp. 54-55 and DFAT Thematic Report. 3.36

12. Coptic Christians were greatly concerned about their future under an Islamist government and most welcomed the military intervention which removed Morsi. This contributed to the most serious outbreak of anti-Christian sectarian violence in recent times, which occurred in July and August 2013 when supporters of President Morsi attacked Christian churches, property and people. According to DFAT this violence was not orchestrated by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, but was carried out by radical supporters of the group in retaliation for what they saw as the significant role Christians played in Morsi's removal.

13. According to DFAT there has been a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks against Copts under the Sisi administration. In a similar vein the US Committee for International Religious Freedom 2015, which covers 2014 and early 2015 stated that, while sporadic violence continued, the number and severity of violence incidents targeting Copts and their property had decreased significantly since the previous year.

14. In their Thematic Report of November 2015 DFAT stated that it was their assessment that the day to day life for most Coptic Christians was not overtly affected by communal tensions adding that:

    ...most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialize together with little regard to each other's religious identity.

    However, small-scale disputes (such as neighborhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community-level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas. Spikes in communal tensions can also coincide with broader political upheavals (2.20).

15. Similarly, after reviewing information from a range of sources the UK Border Agency concluded in its Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians report of 30 June 2014, 'although Christians do face personal and collective societal discrimination and repeated instances of sectarian violence, Christians in Egypt are not in general at risk of persecution or ill-treatment.’[3]

    [3] Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians’, UK Border Agency, 30 June 2014, pp.7-8, available at

16. However, the most recent United States International Religious Freedom Report[4] indicates that the Egyptian government failed to respond to or prevent sectarian violence in some cases, in particular outside of major cities according to human rights advocates and continued to hold “reconciliation sessions” to address incidents of sectarian violence which adopted findings favoring members of the majority Muslim community most of the time. “Reconciliation sessions” after sectarian attacks were used instead of prosecuting perpetrators and these sessions preclude recourse to the judicial system because in most cases the parties agreed to drop all formal charges and lawsuits and stipulated by the terms of the session. They failed to prosecute It was also reported that religious minorities continued to face significant threats of sectarian violence according to religious and human rights groups. There were also reports of lethal sectarian violence continuing over the year.

    [4] United States, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, International Religious Freedom Report for 2015

17. The November 2015 Thematic Report also indicates that Copts have access to state protection in Egypt. According to the report:

    DFAT assesses that on a day-to-day basis in urban areas; the state has a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts, and generally does so. Copts facing harassment are able to go to a local police station for protection in these areas. DFAT assesses that, under the Sisi Government, the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances. However, societal discrimination may impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.

    Discrimination

18. Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited under Egyptian law; however Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Amnesty International reports that it and other human rights organisations have documented a pattern of discrimination against Coptic Christians in Egypt that has been prevalent for ‘decades’.[5] Similarly, the European Parliamentary Research Service states that Egypt’s religious minorities, including Copts, have suffered for decades from discrimination.[6]

    [5] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt: Security forces abandon Coptic Christians during deadly attack in Luxor, 23 July Accessed 17 December 2013 CX316551; Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094

    [6] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights -  Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.1 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044

19. Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion; however, in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[7] In October 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds.[8] The decree added Article 161(ii), which defines discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief’.[9] It establishes a minimum and maximum fines (from EGP30,000 (approximately AUD 4,929)[10] to EGP50,000 (AUD 8,216)) and/or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination. The article adds more severe penalties for government officials who commit a discriminatory act,[11] with a minimum sentence of three months’ imprisonment and/or a minimum fine of EGP50,000 (AUD 8,216) and a maximum fine of EGP100,000 (AUD 16,438).[12] USDOS reports, however, that the amendment does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[13] The report notes that during 2013 ‘there were no indications in the media that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.’[14] Similarly, the January DFAT 2014 report on Copts states that while ‘anti‑discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement’.[15]

    [7] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158

    [8] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206

    [9] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013

    [10] Based on foreign exchanges rates of 4 February 2014 obtained from  US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206

    [12] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013

    [13] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206

    [14] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206

    [15] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158

20. The 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an anti‑discrimination clause. Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief.[16] Although the Constitution reaffirms Islam as the state religion, it recognises Christianity as one of the ‘heavenly religions’ and acknowledges the Coptic Orthodox Church as an official sect of Christianity.[17] However, Minority Rights Group International states that ‘it remains to be seen whether there will be a substantive legal and policy shift towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life’.[18] Reporting on the likely effect of the Constitution, the EIPR states that ‘taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt, it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.’[19]

    [16] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92048

    [17] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158; ‘What’s new in Egypt’s draft constitution’ 2013, BBC News, 3 December Accessed 5 December 2013 CX316553

    [18] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January 2014 CX317623

    [19] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights -  Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.6 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044

21. Sources indicate that Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Several reports were located stating that despite initial optimism on the part of Copts, and public messages of support by President el-Sisi for the Coptic community, discrimination against Copts has continued since el-Sisi was elected.[20] Regarding societal discrimination, DFAT assesses that that ‘community prejudice’ against Copts is ‘pervasive’ but the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio‑economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low‑level and infrequent’ in middle class urban areas but ‘higher’ in poor urban and rural areas.[21] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Muslims across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[22] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims’ and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam.’[23] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination.’[24] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[25]

    [20] Amin, S 2015, ‘What now for Egypt’s Christians?’, Ahram Online, 13 January Accessed 10 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1298; Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714; Kingsley, P 2015, ‘Egyptian President Attends Coptic Christmas Eve Mass in Cairo’, The Guardian, 8 January Accessed 6 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1385

    [21] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158

    [22] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158

    [23] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.11 CIS27158

    [24] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June, p.7 OG180885B8

    [25] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094

1. Reports published by the United States Department of State,[26] Carnegie Endowment,[27] Open Democracy[28] and Ahram Online[29] between 2015 and 2013 all state that Copts face official discrimination in Egypt, particularly with respect to appointments to senior positions within the public sector, public universities, security forces, judiciary and Egyptian government. In its January 2014 report on Copts in Egypt, DFAT provided a somewhat different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination.[30] While DFAT reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[31]  DFAT does report, however, that ‘societal discrimination can create a “glass ceiling” for promotions’ as ‘Copts tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles and in the upper ranks of the military and security services.’[32] According to DFAT ‘subtle favouritism and patronage could rule Copts out of senior positions.’[33]

   Tribunal’s conclusions about the applicant’s claim

   The issue of Credibility

   [26] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, pp. 13-15 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206

   [27] Brownlee, J 2013, Violence Against Copts in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406

   [28] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714

   [29] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714 Ahram Online is a state-owned English-language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic-language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About AhramOnline Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring 2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Center – Accessed 23 May 2013; Ezzat, D 2013, ‘Egyptian Christians struggle to overcome minority status’, Ahram Online, 27 September Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469

   [30] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158

   [31] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158

   [32] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158

   [33] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158

2. The Tribunal is aware of the importance of adopting a reasonable approach in finding of credibility. In Guo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1996) 64 FCR 151, the Full Federal Court made comments on determining credibility. The Tribunal notes in particular the cautionary note sounded by Foster J at 194:

   ….care must be taken that an over-stringent approach does not result in an unjust exclusion from consideration of the totality of some evidence where a portion of it could reasonably have been accepted….

3. The Tribunal also accepts that “…if the applicant’s account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt…” (see, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, Geneva, 1992 at paragraph [196]). However, the Handbook states at (paragraph [204]):

   …The benefit of doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant’s general credibility. The applicant’s statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts…

4. When assessing claims made by applicants the Tribunal needs to make findings of fact in relation to those claims. This usually involves an assessment of the credibility of the applicants. When doing it is important to bear in mind the difficulties often faced with asylum seekers. The benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims.

5. The Tribunal must bear in mind that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might be possibly true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220).

6. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that that the particular assertion by an applicant has not been made out (see, Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547).

   The applicant’s claims

7. Overall, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Coptic Orthodox Christian from [City 1], Egypt and that throughout her life in Egypt, the applicant has experienced various levels of discrimination – official and unofficial and that the independent country information available and referenced by the Tribunal above confirms that this is the current situation in present day Egypt with regards to Coptic Orthodox Christians. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the discriminatory treatment throughout her education and in the course of her employment of which the applicant complained, even when viewed cumulatively, amounted to persecution involving ‘serious harm’ as required by s.91R (1)(b) of the Act. Although the applicant recounted incidents in which she was treated differently from other classmates and even ridiculed at school, and although she said that she took longer to complete her [qualification] because of the prejudice against Coptic Christians, the fact remains that she was able to complete her schooling and to study successfully for a [qualification] in [subject] at [University 1].

8. So far as the applicant’s employment is concerned, although she complained of inappropriate words and bad-mouthing, and said that there were instances in which she was not rewarded with an allowance or money was arbitrarily deducted from her salary, it is apparent that for over 20 years before coming to Australia in 2014 she was employed in a responsible position making use of her professional qualifications in the [specified] department of the [City 1] Council. The Tribunal accepts that, as the applicant said, she was denied transfer and promotion opportunities when working for the Council. This is consistent with the independent evidence referred to above suggesting that Coptic Christians are under-represented in senior positions in the public sector. However the applicant was not on the evidence before the Tribunal caused significant economic hardship or denied the capacity to earn a livelihood and the Tribunal does not accept that the discrimination which she experienced was so serious or so detrimental in its effect on her as to amount to persecution for the purposes of the Refugees Convention.

9. The Tribunal accepts that, having been absent without leave from her employment since she came to Australia in 2014, the applicant will have lost her employment with the [City 1] Council. However the applicant on the evidence before the Tribunal is a well-qualified [occupation 1] with experience in dealing with [related] issues. Although the Tribunal accepts that there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public and private employment, the Tribunal does not accept, therefore, that there is a real chance that the applicant will face discrimination in employment for reasons of her religion as a Coptic Orthodox Christian which is so serious or so detrimental in its effect on her as to amount to persecution for the purposes of the Refugees  Convention if she returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

10. The applicant in her evidence before the Tribunal identified certain incidents which happened to her which formed the reason for her to flee Egypt. The first was in 2009 with her involvement on a [review committee] which consisted of five members (including the applicant) which had the task of determining a dispute between a Christian and Muslim [business] owners. The second, occurred in October 2013 again the applicant was involved in a [council panel] decision, in the minority, and in this instance it involved a ‘Christian [agency]’ housed in a building the Muslim majority (on the panel) had determined to demolish the building as desired by the surrounding Muslim property owners. Again, the applicant opposed this decision. The third incident occurred in November 2013, when the applicant was falsely accused of ‘proselytization’ and summoned to appear before a [prosecutor] and this had its origins in her involvement in the Christian [agency] building issue. Finally, prior to leaving for Australia, the applicant was appointed to carry out an ‘audit’ of all [disputes resolved] by the [City 1] Council for the district of ‘[District 1].’ Given the applicant’s claims about discrimination which she encountered for reasons of her religion in the course of her employment with [City 1] Council, the Tribunal has difficulty in accepting the applicant’s claims that she was repeatedly appointed to carry out various reviews, investigations and audits involving matters of obvious religious sensitivity such as the dispute between a Coptic Christian [business] owner and a Muslim [professional], the request to demolish the Christian [agency’s building] or the project which she claims identified irregularities involving corruption and bribery on the part of high profile people.

11. As to the claim of wrongfully being accused of proselytization the applicant provided copies (together with translations) of only four documents relating to such a prosecution or court hearing. She provided the Department with a copy of an Investigations Report authored by the [prosecutor] and a letter dated [in] January 2014 from [Legal Agency 2] to the [Authority 1] at Cairo Airport, stating that as soon as the applicant arrived in Cairo Airport legal action was to be taken and referencing case number [number].The Tribunal provided the applicant with a considerable period of time to provide documents concerning this [prosecution] of the applicant but the applicant  only provided the Tribunal with a handwritten record of what is said to be a ‘[specified message]’ dated [in] November 2013, cautioning her to attend before the ‘[Official 2]’ at the [Legal Agency 1] in [City 1] on [a date in] November 2013, and an announcement of a hearing to be held at the [Court 1] [in] January 20214, once again referencing case number [number].

12. In his post-hearing submission received by the Tribunal on 28 February 2017, the applicant’s representative said, as referred to above, that the applicant had attended the Egyptian [Representative in Australia] seeking the attestation and certification of official documents in relation to the case but that the officer at the [Office] had stated that it was not their responsibility to attest such documents. However what the Tribunal had sought from the applicant was not attested copies of the documents already produced but further documents in support of the applicant’s claims that court proceedings had been commenced against her. The applicant said that her lawyer had told her that whenever he went to the court complex he was denied access to the court files and that this was because a group of prominent families had identified her as a person ‘working against their interests’. Given that the applicant has produced documents such as the purported letter dated [in] January 2014 from the [Legal Agency 2] to the [Authority 1] at Cairo Airport, to which one would have thought she would not ordinarily have been given access, the Tribunal has difficulty in accepting that she has not been able to produce further court documents in corroboration of her claims regarding the court proceedings against her concerning allegations of proselytization.

13. Moreover, the applicant has said that she appeared before the [prosecutor] in relation to this case on [a date in] November 2013 but that no steps were taken to prevent her from leaving Egypt in January 2014, almost two months later. The Tribunal accepts that it is up to the Prosecutor General to add the names of people with charges against their names or trials pending to the list against which all travellers are checked prior to departing the country.[34] However given the sensitivity of the charges which the applicant claims to have been facing, the Tribunal has difficulty in accepting that her name would not have been added to this list so that she would have been prevented from leaving the country. Therefore, the Tribunal has difficulty in accepting the claim that the applicant has a pending court prosecution in the Courts in Egypt and is accused of proselytization.

    [34] DFAT Country Information Report - Egypt, 24 November 2015, paragraphs 5.26-5.27.

14. Finally, the applicant told the Tribunal that her husband and son had left Cairo where they were living and sought refuge in a [secure location] in [City 1]. This refuge in [this location] was sought because her son had been followed by unidentified masked persons on a motorcycle and ‘when they were very close to him he (her son) heard his name’ being called out and heard gun shots but they missed him and her son ran and escaped. The Tribunal has difficulty in accepting the applicant’s account of these events. If, as the applicant’s representative suggested in his submission, these people were following and monitoring the applicant’s son, and if they wished to shoot him (which is what the applicant’s account appears to suggest), it is difficult to understand why they would have followed him from his [accommodation] near the university when he was on his way to the [shops] or why they would have chosen the particular spot they did to attack him when it is claimed he was able to escape by running away ‘between the streets’. It is also difficult to understand why these people would have decided to attack the applicant’s son in Cairo in November 2016 when the applicant left Egypt in January 2014, almost three years previously, and her husband and son had on the basis of her evidence been living in Cairo, apparently without any problems, since then.

15. Having regard to the problems with the applicant’s evidence which the Tribunal has identified above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is telling the truth about the problems which she claims prompted her to flee Egypt. The Tribunal gives greater weight to the problems which it has identified with the applicant’s evidence than it does to the copies of documents which she has produced in corroboration of her evidence in relation to the court proceedings against her and the letters from the Coptic Church. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was repeatedly appointed to carry reviews, investigations and audits involving matters of obvious religious sensitivity such as the dispute between a Coptic Christian [business] owner and a Muslim [professional], the request to demolish the Christian [agency building] or the [assignment] which she claims identified irregularities involving corruption and bribery on the part of high profile people. The Tribunal does not accept that court proceedings have been brought against the applicant alleging that she was involved in proselytizing to children at the Christian [agency], nor that her name has been placed on an ‘airport watch list’, nor that in November 2016 there was an attempt to attack the applicant’s son in Cairo as she has claimed. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will be persecuted for reasons of her past work in the [specified] department of the [City 1] Council if she returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

16. In the material provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing the applicant referred to attacks on Christian women in Egypt and to accusations that Muslim clerics in Egypt encourage such attacks and do not condemn ISIS (Daesh). The Tribunal accepts the advice of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that, under the Sisi administration, Copts are not at risk of targeted violence from the state or its institutions, that day to day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overtly affected by communal tensions, that Coptic women are generally able to work and travel unaccompanied in most areas of Egypt, and that, on a day-to-day basis in urban areas, the state has a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts, and generally does so.[35] The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm in Egypt from the police, intelligence or judiciary, other authorities or anyone else for reasons of her religion or her gender or for any other reasons considered both individually and cumulatively.

    [35] DFAT Thematic Report - Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015, paragraphs 2.20, 3.36, 4.12 and 5.4.

17. Having considered all the claims, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the material before it that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for any Convention reason, now and into the reasonably foreseeable future, if she was to return to anywhere within [City 1] and throughout the Arab Republic of Egypt more generally. 

18. Accordingly the applicant does not have well-founded fear of persecution and do not satisfy s.36(2)(a).

19. The ‘real risk’ test for the Act’s complementary protection provisions is the same as the real chance test. The Tribunal notes that it made real chance of serious harm findings based on the applicant’s religion and made considerable adverse findings on credibility about the applicant’s claims regarding past harm and harassment incidents by Muslims and being accused of and wanted as a proselytizing Coptic Christian by the authorities.  Accordingly the Tribunal finds there are no substantial reasons based on the applicant’s claims, considered individually as well as cumulatively, that the applicant, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to her country of Egypt, will face a real risk of significant harm of any kind based on her religion and incidents of past harm, cumulatively considered. The Tribunal does not accept that the discriminatory treatment throughout her education and in the course of her employment of which the applicant complained, even when viewed cumulatively, amounted to significant harm as defined in s.36(2A). Although the Tribunal accepts that there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public and private employment, the Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it that there is a real risk that the applicant will face discrimination in employment for reasons of her religion as a Coptic Orthodox Christian that amounts to ‘significant harm’ as defined.

20. In the material provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing the applicant referred to attacks on Christian women in Egypt and to accusations that Muslim clerics in Egypt encourage such attacks and do not condemn ISIS (Daesh). The Tribunal accepts the advice of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that, under the Sisi administration, Copts are not at risk of targeted violence from the state or its institutions, that day to day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overtly affected by communal tensions, that Coptic women are generally able to work and travel unaccompanied in most areas of Egypt, and that, on a day-to-day basis in urban areas, the state has a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts, and generally does so.[36] The Tribunal finds that there are no substantial reasons for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm from the police, intelligence or judiciary, other authorities or anyone else for reasons of her religion or her gender.

    [36] DFAT Thematic Report - Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015, paragraphs 2.20, 3.36, 4.12 and 5.4.

1. In considering the totality of the above matters in assessing the applicant’s claims, for complementary protection, the Tribunal makes this summary finding: Based on all available information and evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to the Arab Republic of Egypt, there is a real risk of significant harm, including the applicant will suffer harm if she is arbitrarily deprived of her live; the death penalty will be carried out on her; she will be subjected to torture; she will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or she will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment as required by s.36(2)(aa).

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

   DECISION

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

   Peter Vlahos
   Member