1606196 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 1350

1606196 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 1350 (20 July 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1606196

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Egypt

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:20 July 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 20 July 2017 at 2:26pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Egypt – Federal Circuit Court remittal – Religion – Coptic Christian – Political opinion – Harassment – Extortion – Credibility issues – Bogus documents – Delay in application

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220

Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437

Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. [The applicant] is a citizen of Egypt and a Coptic Christian. He lived in Cairo prior to coming to Australia in April 2008. He claimed to fear harm from the Muslim Brotherhood because he is a Coptic Christian. He subsequently provided further claims in which he said that he had been bullied and extorted by fellow students, who had then forced him to convert to Islam and falsified his marriage to one of their sisters. They accused him of then leaving Islam and trying to convert his wife to Christianity. As a result he was now wanted by the authorities

2. The delegate refused the application. The applicant applied to the Tribunal but the Tribunal (differently constituted) found it did not have jurisdiction. The applicant appealed to the Federal Circuit Court which remitted the matter back to the Tribunal.

3. A summary of the relevant law is set out at Attachment A. I have taken the policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration and the country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) into account to the extent that they are relevant. 

4. The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugees Convention in Egypt, and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   The applicant’s claims and evidence

5. The applicant made a protection visa application [in] August 2013 with claims contained. In those claims he said:

   ·     When asked why he left Egypt he said that he came here as a student to complete his studies. While here there were a lot of riots and violence against the Church and Christians in Egypt. The political situation in Egypt is not safe it has been getting worse and more dangerous and if he were to go back there he would not be safe and he would be threats and violence. He said a further statement would be provided.

   ·     When asked if he had experienced harm in Egypt he indicated he had and said that as a primary school student he did not suffer harm but at [high school] during religious studies classes the Muslim students referred to him and the other Christian students as pigs, a serious insult to them, and the Muslim students would physically harm him and the other Christian students, throwing them to the ground, beating and kicking and dragging them along the floor. He said a further statement would be provided.

   ·     When asked what he feared would happen if he returned he said that the escalation of violence in Egypt is great and because of the increased threats against Christians he feared being seriously harmed or killed or living his life in fear. The violence is worse than when he was there and he has lived in Australia and seen freedom. The Egyptian constitution is made of sharia law which favours Muslims not Christians, and the religious law makes it acceptable for Muslims to be favoured over Christians and for Christians to be persecuted and harmed. He said a further statement would be provided.

   ·     When asked who he thought may harm/mistreat him if he returned, he said the Muslim Brotherhood would harm him if he went back to Egypt. He said a further statement would be provided.

   ·     When asked why he thought this would happen to him if he returns, he said that the Muslim brotherhood was in power. The army recently ousted the brotherhood from power and they are seeking revenge by public killing and violence. There are many reports in the world media about the political unrest and violence in Egypt. It is a chaotic situation and even the police cannot lessen the violence. The Muslim Brotherhood are killing Christians and security officers and police in public and the police cannot do anything about it. They are attacking police stations and churches and other public places. It is very dangerous in Egypt now, but especially for Christians who are a minority. Even after the unrest settles down the brotherhood will continue assaulting, killing and harming Christians and attacking our churches. He said a further statement would be provided.

   ·     When asked whether he thinks the authorities will protect him if he goes back he said that the Egyptian constitution is made of sharia which favours Muslims not Christians and makes it acceptable to favour Muslims and for Christians to be persecuted and harmed. The police are not able to control the violence. There is a temporary interim government and president so it is not stable. When the election comes there will be a lot of demonstrations and violence because the Muslim Brotherhood are not going to give up power easily. He said a further statement would be provided.

6. The application indicates that it was prepared with assistance from a migration agent at the previous address of [Organisation 1], and an interpreter. The application lists the addresses of the applicant in Australia. The applicant provided a large number of news reports and NGO reports in relation to the violence in 2013 after the removal of Morsi. He provided his 2008-2009 tax return and educational documents for his education in Egypt.

   Statement of June 2014

7. He provided a detailed, undated statement to the Department [in] June 2014, 2 days before the interview with the delegate. In summary he said that:

   ·     He grew up in the middle class suburb of [name] and he attended a private school and then [high school]. Due to not being social and his weak body structure since childhood he was constantly bullied and bashed by classmates and others from the school or neighbourhood. Because of this he would go to church a lot.

   ·     At [high school] he suffered as he was only one of [number] Christians and he was targeted by a group of Muslim students who bullied him. They attacked him, followed him and asked for his pocket money on a daily basis. The humiliation he went through is hard to describe. He complained to his teachers but they did nothing. The boys were [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C].

   ·     His family were supportive and moved him to a school in [City 1]. The boys followed him and waited for him outside school demanding he convert to Islam or else. They abused him in public and made fun of his religion. On one occasion they threatened him with a knife to say the words of Islam (the Shahada or spoken phrase by which one announces publicly that one has converted to Islam) in front of them.

   ·     He finished his institute in 2006 and worked at a [business] but they would demand money from him there. To stop them harassing he said the Shahada. After this they were better towards him but he still had to give them money. They pushed him to go pray at the mosque and to make his announcement public.

   ·     He decided then to run away overseas. The bullies found out but he convinced them that he could assist them if he went to Australia. They warned him that if he broke his promises they would harm his family.

   ·     He called them a few times to keep them happy but a year after arriving in Australia he changed his phone number. At the end of 2009 the three boys approached his family and told the applicant’s family that he has converted to Islam and asked his family to pay them some money. The applicant’s father called the applicant and the applicant told him everything. The applicant’s father said he would handle it.

   ·     The bullies did not stop and followed his father, once they tried to hit him with a car. His father reported this to the police but the police did not take any action. His father sold the [business] as a result in October 2010 and since then has been unemployed.

   ·     The bullies were aligned with the former President and the Muslim Brotherhood. The revolution and the aftermath emboldened the gangsters and they kept demanding from his father. His father married the applicant’s sisters to keep them safe.

   ·     The bullies fabricated a marriage between the applicant and one of their sisters and then claimed the applicant had deserted Islam and the sister and had tried to convert the sister to Christianity, and demanded the applicant’s family’s second property to live in.

   ·     Egypt is in turmoil and nowhere is safe.

8. Under cover of a letter dated 15 July 2014 the applicant’s new representatives provided translations and copies of a police report commenced [in] May 2013 (Df. 190 – 186, 182-180, 168, 167)  and decision of the public prosecutor dated [May] 2013, an investigations report commenced [June] 2013 indicating the applicant was outside the country, a decision of the prosecutor dated [June] 2013 to place the applicant on the watch list at all arrival ports, and a prosecutions decree to the director general of passports ordering the applicant be placed on the watch list (undated – Df. 179-178), a civil marriage contract between the applicant and [named] (undated – Df. 177-176), a [letter] signed [March] 2011 stating they were responding to a request dated [May] 2013 and that the applicant had announced his conversion to Islam [in] February 2008, a police report commenced [December] 2009, and a birth certificate for the applicant.

9. The delegate refused the application. The delegate accepted the applicant was a Coptic Orthodox Christian. The Delegate accepted the applicant may have been bullied at school but found the claims that the bullies pursued him to another school, forced him to convert, and then pressured his family after his departure to be [far-fetched]. The delegate noted the prevalence of fraudulent documents in Egypt and accordingly gave the police and other documents no weight. The delegate noted the significant delay between the applicant arriving in Australia and applying for protection. The delegate found he had applied for protection due to the unrest in 2013 as indicated in his written claims, did not find his claims to suffer harm prior to his arrival to be genuine and that they were fabricated to enhance his claims. The delegate went on to assess his claims as accepted and found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor that he was owed complementary protection.

10. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with his application for review. 

11. The tribunal, differently constituted, found that it had no jurisdiction and the applicant’s substantive claims were not considered. The Federal Circuit Court remitted the matter by consent to the Tribunal.

12. The applicant requested that the hearing be as anonymous as possible. The Tribunal has complied with this request to the extent possible, ensuring that his biographical details were unknown to the interpreter and taking all other reasonable steps. The applicant and his representative indicated they were comfortable with these arrangements.

13. The applicant provided a statutory declaration to the Tribunal, dated [November] 2016, as well as copies of the documents already provided to the Department (Tf. 50 – 37). In his statutory declaration he said:

    ·     He fears harm from the men who think he has converted to Islam and there is a warrant for his arrest and if he goes to jail they will be able to reach him;

    ·     He explains the bullying he received from two boys in his school [Mr A] and [Mr B] and a third who was the [relative] of a [Salafist], [Mr C]. They kept pursuing him even though his higher institute was [number] minutes away by car, they would come to his house;

    ·     He explains that when he left Egypt in 2008 he wanted to study and also saw the student visa as a way of getting away from the situation in the hope that they would forget about him;

    ·     Then in 2009 they demanded money from his father. about a year later they came to the family home saying one of their friends wished to marry the applicant’s sister;

    ·     When his visa expired he was too afraid to go back to Egypt but did not know he could apply for protection in Australia and thought he could remain, living in hiding. He was afraid of his persecutors even here;

    ·     He was sleeping on the streets from 2011 to 2013. He thought of returning to Egypt but his father told him it was too dangerous. He only found out about protection when his housemates applied. Even then he was scared to apply as he feared the Australian government would send him back to Egypt. Since nothing bad had happened to his housemates after applying for protection he applied too after 5 months;

    ·     He applied with the help of [Organisation 1] but was wary of giving any details about his claims. He did intend to provide more details, he was asked a few times, but thought it best to add at the interview. He then injured his back;

    ·     Then he met a friend, [Mr D], at Church, and [Mr D] wrote out the applicant’s statement in English and read it back to him in Arabic. When he said in his interview that [Mr D] told him what to say he meant he had told [Mr D] his story and [Mr D] told him what details should be included, everything in his statement is his true story. He took this statement to his lawyers and it was provided to the Department;

    ·     He claims that he provided the Islamic Conversion and marriage documents to show they had been fabricated in an attempt to discredit him, which was misunderstood by the delegate. He then gives further detail about the false marriage document;

    ·     The police report is genuine. The applicant heard from his father that [Mr C] was in prison at the time but must have been allowed to go to the police station as a witness. The Public Prosecutor decision record is genuine. The order to put his name on the watch list and investigation report are genuine;

    ·     The conversion document is false. He did not convert although he did say the Shahada but under duress and he did not change his religion or go to the mosque;

    ·     His father was given these documents when the police found the applicant was outside Egypt;

    ·     One police report dated [December] 2009 is from his father outlining the harassment his father endured. The applicant did not know about this earlier;

    ·     [Mr C] could get to the applicant, if he is in jail, indirectly;

    ·     His family moved following the January 2011 revolution. His mother is unwell and rarely leaves the house; his father has no issues practicing his religion. The applicant has an ongoing commitment to Christianity;

    ·     The applicant is worried about the interpreter at hearing and that what he says will be reported back to Egyptian authorities;

    ·     He feels he was not able to express himself clearly at the interview. He also noted he has anxiety and has some issues with his speech, it is sometimes hesitant. He also has problems with his memory. He has not received any professional help other than a counsellor at [Organisation 1] who recommended he be treated for anxiety but he does not want to take medication and someone who talked about his psychological state;

    ·     He cannot relocate or seek state protection in Egypt

14. After the hearing the applicant’s representative provided a post hearing submission on 13 December 2016 with country information annexed. This restated his claims, argued that he feared harm from state and non-state actors, that he should be considered a vulnerable person, quoted from the vulnerability guidelines and credibility guidelines of the Tribunal, addressed the highlighted concerns with the applicant’s documents, the apparent differences between the claims raised in his protection application (Form 866) and subsequent statement and statutory declaration, and the issue of delay.

15. A further submission and country information was provided on 28 June 2017. This states that the situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt has significantly deteriorated in the last seven months, that the attack in December 2016 was [number] minutes from his home, quotes the DFAT country information report of 2017, lists attacks from December 2016 onwards, discusses state protection, and quotes from attached media releases from the Coptic Orthodox Bishop of [City 2 in Australia] and the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

    Identity and nationality

16. The applicant provided an original Egyptian birth certificate to the delegate with translation. On the basis of this information I am satisfied that the applicant is who he claims to be, that he is a national of Egypt by birth, and that Egypt is his receiving country.

17. He has not made claims nor is there any evidence to indicate that he has a right to enter and reside in any third country. I find he does not have such a right.

    Vulnerability claims

18. The applicant’s representative has urged that the applicant be considered under the vulnerable person guidelines. However, their reasons for this would appear to capture all of those who seek to engage Australia’s protection obligations. I accept that the applicant has had a significant period in Australia in which his immigration status has been uncertain and that this has had an effect on him. I accept, as below, that he was bullied during his schooling, and I accept that this has had an effect on him. Below I have not accepted key other aspects of his claims including his claims of other past harm nor that he was homeless for a period of time in [City 2 in Australia]. I note also that I do not have any psychological report or analysis indicating the applicant has symptoms associated with trauma or anxiety as he has claimed. I am willing to accept that he is anxious about the process of applying for protection but not, on the evidence, that he has a diagnosable condition of anxiety, I am willing to accept that he is not a confident speaker, but having spoken to him at the hearing I do not accept on the evidence that he has ‘issues’ with his speech. I am willing to accept that there is a level of vulnerability in the applicant’s circumstances as accepted, and I have attempted to deal with him consistent with this level of vulnerability, and I note the steps that were taken by the Tribunal to accommodate his request that his personal details not be known to the interpreter. Having had the benefit of speaking with the applicant at the hearing I do not accept that he showed any level of particular vulnerability, that he had any particular issues with memory, speech or giving evidence. He was able to give his evidence in a detailed, coherent manner, respond to questions and issues relevantly and indicated that he understood concerns and attempted to address them. On the evidence before me I do not accept that the applicant has anxiety, nor do I accept that he has ‘issues’ with his speech, nor issues with his memory nor any other impediment which lead to him having a particular vulnerability. On the information before me I find that the applicant was able to participate fully in the hearing and review process. I note also that at all times he has been represented in this process.

    Credibility

1. I have had regard to the submissions and in particular to the submission that I consider the applicant as a vulnerable person, discussed above. However, in this case there are too many inconsistencies and unexplained problems with his evidence for me to ignore. I do not accept that those aspects claimed to lead to his vulnerability, of which I have accepted above, provide a full or partial explanation for the following credibility issues. As above he was, I find, fully able to participate in the hearing and review process, and understood my expressed concerns and made responses in an attempt to address these. Further, he was represented and these concerns were also addressed in pre and post hearing submissions. Having taken all of these into account and considered them carefully, my concerns remain.  These include difficulties with inconsistencies between his protection application claims and his subsequent claims, the plausibility of his claims, the documents he has provided, and the delay in applying for protection. On assessing these concerns below I have found that the applicant is not credible or a witness of truth, for the following reasons.

   Inconsistency between claims in protection application and later claims

2. A considerable concern in this case is that the applicant’s claims in his protection application are so at variance with his later claims. His protection application was signed [in] August 2013. His statement, provided to the Department [in] June 2014, has been consistent with later statements and evidence he has given but is, I find, materially different to the claims made in the protection application of [August] 2013 for the following reasons.

3. The information in the protection application is reasonably specific – he describes in some detail the attacks and bullying he received at his high school from unnamed Muslim students – he does not mention specific students, nor does he mention extortion, or this treatment continuing beyond his time at [high school]. When asked what he fears on return he does not mention Muslim students, extortion, or threats or treatment after school, he claimed to fear the escalation of violence in Egypt and increased threats towards Christians, and he said the law allows for Christians to be harmed and persecuted. When asked who he thought would harm him he said the Muslim Brotherhood, and said that although the Muslim Brotherhood had been recently ousted they are seeking revenge and the authorities cannot control them, and even after the unrest the Brotherhood will continue harming Christians.

4. I acknowledge that the applicant indicated throughout his protection application that a further statement would be provided, and the subsequent claims of him and his representative that there is no inconsistency between these claims and his later claims contained in his statements and evidence after this, his detailed discussion of why he did not provide more detailed information earlier during his period being represented by [the migration agent], and the claims that his protection application was undetailed as it had been done with the help of volunteers at [Organisation 1] and the submission of his representative that he was assisted through a limited [service], may not have met with the same person, two separate lawyers assisted him, there may have been limited time at the clinics, that his statement by [the migration agent] may have been delayed due to resourcing, and that as soon as he provided detailed information, he provided all the relevant detail now before the Tribunal.

5. I have had regard to these claims but I do not find them convincing. I find that the claims made in his protection application and those made later are materially different, not just less detailed or a summary of his later claims. In his protection application he makes no mention of his claims to have been bullied and extorted by the three boys after leaving [high school], he makes no mention of one boy’s family being Salafists, he makes no mention of him saying the Shahada under duress, their threats to his family, or their continued beatings (one of which he claims led to him having to have stitches) and extortion which he says continued until sometime after he came to Australia. He makes no mention of his claim that at the end of 2009 the three approached his family and told the applicant’s family that he has converted to Islam and asked his family to pay them some money and threatened to kill the applicant, the applicant’s father then called the applicant and the applicant told him everything and his father said he would handle it. He makes no mention that there had been a complaint made to the police in May 2013 that he had beaten his ‘wife’ and tried to convert her to Christianity, was wanted in relation to these claims and had been placed on the watch list at the ports. He makes no claims about fearing these three, or the authorities, on return in his application, mentioning only the Muslim Brotherhood who he acknowledges had been recently removed from power.

6. Even if I accept his evidence at the hearing that he did not physically have the documents until after the interview, because his father had not yet sent them to him, he has not provided any coherent or reasonable explanation for why he would not have referred to these serious claims in his application for protection in August 2013, saying only that he was scared the Egyptian government might have notice of this, which I have addressed and not accepted below. But even were he afraid to mention the official sanctions at this stage, he was undeniably, by his own testimony, at the date of applying for protection aware that around 2009 the three boys had told his family he had converted to Islam, they had tried to extort his family, had threatened to kill him and harm his family, and had spent years extorting and bullying him. Yet in his protection application he has not provided any of this information in detail or summary form. His claims of past harm, but more particularly of the three boys that he fears harm from and the reasons for that fear are now, I find, materially different to those in his protection application.

7. I understand that in 2013 there was country information supporting the view that the Muslim Brotherhood would continue to rampage and attack large numbers of Christians and others who had supported the military’s removal of President Morsi, and I accept that this would have played on the mind of any Christian contemplating returning to Egypt at that time. But I do not accept that this would lead to the applicant providing no detail about his specific claims of past harm and that the three boys had told his family of his claimed conversion, and had attempted to extort his family, and who he claims terrorised him in school and afterwards, up to and including when he was in Australia. The applicant attempted to reconcile the claims to some extent by claiming that the bullies were aligned with the former President and the Muslim Brotherhood but I do not find this convincing either – in his protection application he claims to fear the Muslim Brotherhood, not specific people who have harmed him, have connections to a [Salafist] and who may or may not be aligned with the Brotherhood.

8. I have had regard to his detailed explanation of why he did not provide more detail earlier in the process. I understand that he claims that it is his nature not to say things and make things publicly known, when scared he does not say things and keeps things to himself and that he was scared to say things publicly and he was scared that this information may become known to the Egyptian government. I do not accept these explanations – the claim that it is not in his nature to say things is vague and imprecise, and by the time he had applied for protection in August 2013 he had lived in Australia for 5 years, had, he says, paid close attention to the applications for protection made by his two housemates and then, some 5 months after they lodged, when nothing had happened to them, he had decided to lodge, and he was represented when preparing his protection application. For all of these reasons I do not accept his claims that he was afraid the process would not be confidential, or that he was scared to say things publicly or he was scared the Egyptian government may find out. This is because, I find, he was aware of the confidentiality of the process, having observed his housemates make applications, had lived in Australia for a considerable time and, if he continued to have any concerns, he was able to clarify these matters with his representatives. But a further difficulty with these explanations for the inconsistencies between his Form 866 and later claims is that the claims in the Form 866 are, I find, materially different, not just less detailed. Whilst it might be conceivable that someone who is scared, not wanting things publicly known or any of these other explanations would give less detail, but consistent claims, I do not accept as they are expressed that these explanations explain or ameliorate the provision by the applicant of materially different claims.

9. The applicant’s representative made submissions at the hearing that the applicant had been credible and provided detail in line with his two detailed written statements, and had been consistent ever since the interview with the Department, that the [Organisation 1] [clinic] provided limited assistance, that it was clear from the application form that the applicant was assisted by two lawyers and different volunteers under their supervision, that he was working with people he did not know well and where he felt anxious, his explanations are credible and justify that there is less detail in the application form and some significant detail missing, that Salafis are closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he should be given the benefit of the doubt in relation to the brevity of information in his protection application. the post-hearing submission reiterates these matters and also contains a detailed discussion of the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists. I do not find any of these submissions to satisfactorily explain the identified differences in his evidence. I am willing to accept that the factors highlighted in submissions including the limited assistance in the [legal] clinics, having perhaps had different volunteers assist, having had the supervision of two lawyers, being assisted to only summarise his claims, being referred to an IAAAS provider who then did not prioritise a further statement may all have led to a lack of detail or coherence in his claims made in his protection application. But as I note above, I find the differences here not to be a matter of lesser and greater detail, but to be materially different. It is worth noting again that the applicant provided significant detail in his protection application, including details of the bullying at his school by unnamed Muslim students, and detailed quotations of the Egyptian Constitution. It is not, I consider, true to say that these are undetailed claims, but neither are they a summary of or consistent with his later claims. For these reasons whilst accepting the above factors, I do not accept that they explain the differences between the claim sets. The submission goes on to say that the consistency of his subsequent statements, statutory declaration and oral evidence, and the assertion that the claims in the Form 866 are not entirely different to his detailed statements and oral evidence should all be taken into account. I do not accept these arguments at all. Firstly, I do not accept that later consistency expunges concerns with earlier inconsistency, and secondly the claims are different – whilst they may not be ‘entirely different’, they are different in significant and important ways as discussed above, so I do not accept this part of the submission. In relation to the detailed discussion of the similarities or differences between Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood I would say that the groups are distinct, as is conceded in the submission, and that I do not accept that such a distinction would not be apparent to someone who has lived his whole life in Egypt. I do not accept that if he genuinely feared the [relative] of a [Salafist], he would not have said this instead of saying he feared the Muslim Brotherhood, a related but distinct political movement/party. In any event, if this were the only, or even the major difference in the claims, then it may not hold significance, but, as it is one of many differences in the claims he has made, I do not accept this argument.

10. For these reasons I do not accept that the applicant did not provide evidence about these events in his protection application for the reasons he claims or that have been submitted on his behalf. His protection application is not a summary of his later claims, I find, but materially and significantly different. Similarly for the assertion that the differences in the claims can be explained by the applicant having his protection application prepared in the manner claimed by him and in submissions Materially, and as he conceded, the applicant’s application was completed with the assistance of [Organisation 1], under the supervision of lawyers, and with the use of an Arabic and English interpreter. Taking all of the arguments put forward, I do not accept that any of these explanations is sufficient, alone or taken together, in explaining why the applicant did not mention his specific claims of past harm or who, specifically, he feared on return in his protection application. Having considered the differing claims, having considered all of the explanations made for the differences, I find that the applicant has provided claims in his June 2014 statement and since that time that are materially different from those made in his protection application dated [August] 2013. I find, on my reasoning above, that this leads me to disbelieve his claims made in his June 2014 statement and onwards, and in total with my other credibility findings, to find that the applicant has manufactured these later claims in order to strengthen his claims for protection.

    Plausibility of claims

11. Connected to this concern is the plausibility of the claims made. As I discussed with the applicant at the hearing, it does not appear clear to me why these three boys, [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C], would continue to extort him after he left the school he shared with two of them - the applicant later attempted to explain this by saying that they would extort him at his home area and then his work at the [business], but even if this is accepted, it is unclear what their motivation was for then forcing him to convert to Islam and their later actions. As I discussed with the applicant, there are reports of conversions to Islam, but these are commonly Christian women or girls who are forced to convert and then to marry Muslim men, poorer Copts in rural areas such as Upper Egypt, or in some cases Coptic women who convert to Islam in order to divorce their abusive Coptic husbands, and only mixed evidence for such conversions being forced.[1] Whilst there appeared some scant evidence of Copts being cajoled or convinced to convert during Morsi’s reign, there appeared less evidence prior to this.[2] I noted that the country information did not appear to support his claim that as a young male in an urban area he had been forced to convert to Islam. He said he had not said he was forced to convert but I noted that his claim as I understood it was that he had been forced to say the Shahada under duress and possibly at knifepoint and had been treated by the three boys afterwards as having converted (even if he himself did not consider that he had done so), and that this situation did not appear supported by the country information. I went on to discuss with him country information that indicated that instances of attacks against Copts in Egypt were relatively rare and that most Copts lived peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, particularly in urban centres such as Cairo where he lived.[3]

    [1] RRT Research response EGY 31526, Egypt – Coptic Christians – Forced conversion to Islam, 26 March 2007, Fouad, A., “Egypt's religious conversion controversy”, Al-Monitor, 21 October 2014, ; DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015.

    [2] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015, 3.36.

    [3] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015.

12. He said that there were instances of attacks against Copts and referred to four children who had insulted ISIS in a video and had been put on trial for insulting Islam, and a 70 year old Coptic woman who had been brutally assaulted in Upper Egypt. I noted that these examples did not appear congruent with his situation. I noted that the central point was that I could find some country information that Coptic children may be bullied or harassed at school, but little support for the claim that this would continue after school, and as I had said I was not sure what the motivation or evidence was for this continuing after school and leading to his forced conversion/forcing him to say the Shahada in an attempt to convert him. In response the applicant said that it was his weak body structure, that he is the type of person who tries to avoid conflict, that as he had said it is harassment and persecution, and if this happens to people they will not talk about it as they try later to reconcile and don’t raise the matter with police. He said that the only way to know what is happening is to find two people, one a Muslim and one a Christian and ask them separately and they will tell you honestly what is happening there. I do not find the applicant’s explanations convincing. I find that the country information does not support that, at the time he claims, Copts were forced to say the Shahada and convert to Islam in the way he describes.

13. I have had regard to the country information supplied by the applicant and included with submissions. I have had regard to the quotation from the DFAT thematic report included in the post hearing submission that neighbourhood disputes can adopt religious overtones.[4] But this does not explain why the three boys would continue to bully and extort him after school, force him to say the Shahada in 2006 -2008 and then implicate him in serious crimes in 2013. I have had regard to the attached country information on the general situation for Copts, blasphemy laws, the judicial process, travel restrictions, state protection and mistreatment in prison, but this information does not assist with my concerns as I expressed to the applicant at the hearing. I have had regard to the June 2017 submission which contains further detail and notes that in the attack on 26 May 2017 in Southern Egypt men and boys were forced off the bus and forced to say the Shahada,[5] but this was a very very different situation to the one claimed by the applicant, an attack claimed by Islamic State in very different circumstances and in Minya governorate, a rural area. I have considered this information carefully but I do not accept that this lends greater weight to the applicant’s claims – he claims that he was forced to say the Shahada in 2006 – 2008, and the country information about the situation at that time simply does not support this occurring in the manner he claims. The fact that IS or another extremist group attacked a bus and, either genuinely, or more likely falsely offered them the choice of saying the Shahada and living as Muslims to avoid death does not, I think, give greater credence to the applicant’s claims about his circumstances. Having read considerably on the May attacks, it would appear that the offer to say the Shahada was a method to further instil terror into Christians in Egypt. in any event, I do not accept that this recent event makes his claim of what happened some 10 years ago more likely to have occurred in the circumstances he claims.

    [4] Tf. 76, quoting DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015 at 2.20.

    [5] WALSH, D, YOUSSEF, N, “Gunmen in Egypt Force Coptic Christian Pilgrims From Buses and Kill 28”, New York Times, 26 May, 2017, 

1. A further concern is the applicant’s claims that the three boys then fabricated a marriage between the applicant and one of their sisters and then claimed the applicant had deserted Islam and the sister and had tried to convert the sister to Christianity, and demanded the applicant’s family’s second property to live in. He provided a range of documents to support these claims, which I have analysed below, but there is also a further difficulty with these claims which is the plausibility and timing of them. The applicant, he said, had not spoken to them since around the end of 2009 or 2010, and as far as he was aware the last interaction his family had had with the three was around the time of their attempt to attack his father with a car and their attempt to marry a friend to one of the applicant’s sisters in 2010. After this time, the applicant said at hearing, he had no evidence of them having approached or harmed his family further, and he had gotten fed up with them after he had been in Australia for a year and ceased any contact with them. The applicant was unable to explain why they would have waited some two to three years before implicating him in this manner.

2. In this case I find the applicant’s claims, at their root, to be far-fetched and implausible. Whilst I accept, and there is support for, bullying of Coptic students whilst at school,[6] I do not accept, nor does the country information support, that this would have continued for years afterwards, that they would have made him say the Shahada, nor that they then would have fabricated his marriage to a sister, and made complaints to the authorities related to this. Whilst I do not expect the applicant to be able to explain the motivation of his persecutors, why they would continue to harass, bully and extort him after school, or why they would take the steps to implicate him in the marriage, desertion and attempted conversion of one of their sisters, I do think it is significant that there is no clear explanation of why they would have taken these steps, neither in the claims he has made nor in any country information that supports the applicant being forced to convert in the circumstances he describes. I consider that it is particularly significant that the applicant has been unable to provide any sense of what would have motivated them to take these actions where country information does not support such things occurring and where the claims, especially of their later conduct in implicating him in crimes, appears so implausible and far-fetched. These findings lead me, with the other findings above and below, to doubt his later claims of ongoing harm from the three boys, his forced conversion or anything that he claims has happened subsequently.

   Documents provided

   [6] See, for example, “Christian children ‘singled out for bullying’ in Egyptian classrooms, WorldWatch Monitor, 1 November 2016,

3. Following the interview with the delegate, the applicant provided a number of documents, as set out above. At the hearing I discussed a number of concerns I had about these documents with the applicant. Given the concerns with several of the documents he had provided, I raised with him country information that indicated that document fraud was widely and well-practiced in Egypt[7] and put to the applicant that this may lead me to doubt whether some or all of the documents provided were genuine. In response the applicant said he could not go back and say he had not been married and had not declared himself to be a Muslim. I noted that even if I accepted his argument that the marriage certificate and conversion letter documents were fraudulent but had been fraudulently obtained by the three boys or their agents rather than him or people on his behalf, I also had concerns with the police and prosecution documents, and that I may doubt those are genuine. The applicant said that these were genuine.

   [7] For example in a report dated 3 July 2014, DFAT provided information that ‘Post does not have any specific information on the availability of fraudulent court/legal documents since the ousting of former president Morsi. Corruption however is a serious problem in Egypt and impacts on all areas of life. Contacts have told Post that document fraud is rife, involving not only counterfeit documents but also official documents or reports that have been obtained by way of bribes. Egypt was ranked 114th out of 177 countries in Transparency International's 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index, as levels of bribery, abuse of power and secret dealings remained high.’ CX322827 accessed 19 August 2014; United Kingdom: Home Office, Country Information and Guidance - Egypt: Background information, including actors of protection and internal relocation., May 2015, available at: [accessed 11 July 2017]; See also United States Department of State, U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 2004 - Egypt , 15 September 2004, available at: [accessed 11 July 2017],

4. Having carefully considered the documents, the applicant’s claims about these documents and the events, the explanations for the identified concerns and the country information, I find that the documents discussed below are fraudulent for the following reasons.

5. I noted that the translation of the marriage contract he had provided did not have a date and asked him why this might be. He said he did not know as he is not a Muslim. It was submitted on his behalf that the applicant has deduced that this marriage certificate has been produced fraudulently by the three men targeting him and so it stands to reason it would not contain all of the relevant information. I am willing to accept this but I would note that the date a marriage is either entered into or certified would appear to be a fairly fundamental piece of information lacking from this document.

6. Secondly, I noted to him that the prosecution decree he had provided did not have a date on it. He noted that there was a complaint number and the year 2013 on it. I noted that this was true but that, being a decree, it did not have a date of the decree. He said he did not know why, he had not been to a police station. It was submitted on his behalf that not having a date does not mean that it is not a genuine document, and it may be missing for many reasons, one of which may be typographical or human error. I have considered this but I think this rather unlikely – the decree gave legal effect to placing the applicant on a watch list of people arriving from overseas, that is, it is not just a procedural letter but requires implementation of the Prosecution decision or decree. I do not accept that on such a document such an important matter of the date of the decree, and therefore the date when the applicant’s name should be placed on the watch list, would be missed, by typographical error or otherwise.

7. Thirdly, I raised with the applicant concerns with the 2013 police report. I noted the concern raised by the delegate that country information located by the delegate appeared to indicate that [Mr C] was in prison with [a relative] around the time that the police report was made. The applicant agreed that [Mr C] had been put in jail, he said that the incident that led to [Mr C] being jailed happened [in] 2013, he and [a relative] [assaulted] [someone] and they were also in possession of [weapons] and were trouble making. The applicant said that [Mr C] was arrested 3 or 4 days later. I asked, if this was the case, how could [Mr C] have made the police complaint against the applicant [in] May 2013. The applicant said the person who complained was [Mr A]. I noted that [Mr C] had also been present and given information for the police complaint and I did not understand how he could have done that if he had been in jail. The applicant said he had been asking himself the same question. Then the applicant said that he believed there were false witnesses. I note that the applicant said in his November 2016 statement that he had heard from his father that, at the time, [Mr C] was in prison, but must have been allowed to go to the police station as a witness. Later in the hearing, noting his father had been called [in] May 2013 to answer the charges against the applicant, the applicant said that his father went and did not see the other applicants, he just knew they must have applied and said to the police ‘tell me, if [Mr C] is in jail, how could he witness it’. I noted to the applicant that when this issue was first raised with the applicant by the delegate at interview, the applicant said he had no idea that [Mr C] was in jail. The applicant denied this. He said the delegate was talking to him about [Mr C]’s [relative]. I noted I did not think the delegate had said this but also that even so, would that not have been the time for the applicant to say that he was aware that [Mr C] had been in jail. The post hearing submission argues that it is unclear if [Mr C] was still in prison at the time of the police complaint and cites [another source], arguing that [Mr C] appears to only have been imprisoned for [number] days and was then sentenced in March 2015, and that it is reasonable to assume from the available information that [Mr C] was released after the initial order of [number] days imprisonment, before being tried and convicted in 2015. However, there is evidence, quoted in the delegate’s decision that shows that [Mr C and his relatives] were in custody from [date] 2013 and had their detention renewed by the public prosecutors [on a date in] 2013.[8] It would appear that, having been imprisoned for [duration], it would be reasonable to consider that the prosecution would seek for their continued detention for the same or a longer period. This information and this inference therefore strongly supports the original contention raised by the delegate, that is, that at the time the claimed police report was made [in] May 2013 that [Mr C] was supposedly questioned as a witness, [Mr C] was in fact in [jail]. I find that this is concrete information that [Mr C] was in jail in May 2013. I have considered the applicant’s claim that he may have been allowed out of jail to witness the report. I do not accept that this would occur, or that if it had, that there would not be some notation on the police report to indicate this. I also do not accept the applicant’s claims that there were ‘false witnesses’ if by this he means that [Mr C] and the others were not in fact there for the making of the report. I find that [Mr C] was not there for the making of the report on the basis of the [sources mentioned] above. I find therefore that this police report is not a truthful reflection of what has transpired. In light of these findings, taking into account the country information in relation to document fraud, I find that the 2013 police report is a fraudulent document. Further, on this basis and taking into account my other concerns with the applicant’s claims above and below, I find the police report has been fraudulently obtained by the applicant or someone acting on his behalf for the purposes of strengthening his claims for protection.

   [8] [Information deleted].

8. This finding also, I find, casts the errors in the two other documents in a different light, and leads me to conclude that the Prosecutor decree and the marriage certificate are also fraudulent documents, and to further find that they have been fraudulently obtained by the applicant or someone acting on his behalf for the purposes of strengthening his claims for protection. I therefore reject the claim that the marriage certificate and [fatwa] were fraudulently obtained by the three boys or their agents to harm the applicant.

9. These findings lead me to find that I cannot rely on any of the other documents provided by the applicant given these findings of document fraud. This leads me to place no weight on any of the documents provided by the applicant in terms of supporting his claims or assessing the veracity of those claims, whilst also causing me to harbour grave concerns with his credibility given my finding that he has provided or caused to be provided fraudulent documents.

   Delay

10. In this case the matter of delay arises on the information before me. The applicant arrived in Australia in April 2008 on a student visa, having been beaten (and on one occasion so badly he had to have stitches) and extorted by the three boys for years, having been forced to say the Shahada. When they discovered he was travelling to Australia they threatened they would harm his family. Around the end of 2009 the three also attempted to extort the applicant’s family and threatened they would kill the applicant, from his testimony at the hearing they came to his family threatening his family and the applicant numerous times around 2009 - 2010. The applicant claims at this time he could not continue studying and wanted to return but his father told him not to come back and they wanted him safe. In May 2013 the three boys engineered the charges against him which mean he is now wanted for questioning by the authorities. The applicant’s student visa ceased, he said, about three years after he came to Australia, and he then, he said, spent about two and half years unlawfully in Australia before being granted a bridging visa on applying for protection [in] August 2013.

11. Given the above, it appeared that there were several points at which it would be expected that the applicant would have sought assistance to remain lawfully in Australia, including seeking protection earlier than he did. As noted by the delegate, an applicant’s delay in applying for protection can support an adverse credibility finding as well as a finding that the person’s fear is not well-founded.[9]

    [9] Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347.

12. I explored this concern with the applicant at the hearing. I noted that when he arrived in Australia he had been harmed and threatened. I noted that around the time when his visa ceased and he became unlawful, he had been told by his father not to return and that they wanted him safe. I noted that there was then some 2 ½ years in which he was unlawful and had no legal right to remain in Australia, and yet he still did not apply. The applicant said that at the beginning he did not apply as his intention was to go back. I noted to him that he had said his father had warned him in 2009 that if he went back he would get killed and the applicant said that was correct. He then said that he thought maybe after 3 years of staying here the matter might settle down and he would go back and that’s it. He said his father continued telling him not to come back as there were still problems.

13. He said from the time he finished his student visa until the time he applied for protection he did not know he had the right to apply. He said also that between 2011 and 2013 he did not have a fixed address and lived on the streets. I read to the applicant from his application form where he has provided addresses for these years and noted that I may doubt that he had no fixed address or was homeless over this time as this did not appear to be what was indicated in his application. He said that the last two addresses were the addresses of the two friends who applied for protection before he did, and he used to stay with them and then go back on to the streets. He said if you checked their protection applications they would also list those addresses. I noted that I was not able to do on the information he had given me but even if I was, that did not appear to indicate anything other than that they had all lived at the same addresses, and I noted that, given he had been represented, I would consider it reasonable that if he had had no fixed address between those years, that this would have been indicated in his application. He reiterated that he had been living on the streets, and sometimes he went to their places.

14. I then turned to his claim that he was not aware that he could apply for protection. I noted that I may not accept that he did not know he had the right to apply. He had lived in Australia for a significant period, had studied English and had been told by his father that these people have threatened to kill him in 2009, which would appear a significant motivation to go and find what his options were to stay. I noted also that information on protection was available online and he had a bachelor’s [degree]. I noted that all of this might lead me to consider that he had the motivation and means to find out about protection earlier and apply, and that his failure to have done so may lead me to doubt his credibility and the well-foundedness of his claimed fears. He said that he did not know, that the priest, he and his [relative] were staying in [suburb], as his [relative] had come for study but had then got married in Australia and did not finish his studies. He said he was not a social person who could talk about these things to people and ask them. I noted that the information was available online, on the Department website. The applicant said that if he had known about it and was making all of that up he would have done that in 2011. He didn’t know anything about refugees then and at least he would not have had to stay on the street.

15. The applicant confirmed he had been unlawful for about 2 ½ years. He said he had lost his passport and was too scared to go and get a replacement from the Egyptian Embassy so he did not find out that he was without a visa. He said if he had gone to the Embassy and said he had lost his passport they will say his visa has expired and send him back. I noted that this all appeared to indicate to me why he would have been motivated to find out about protection earlier. He reiterated that the only time he realised there was something called protection was after his two friends applied.

16. The post hearing submission argued that the applicant provided plausible and reasonable explanations in response to the concerns I raised, and that the Tribunal’s concerns relate only to personal opinion as to how the applicant should have acted. And so his credible responses should be given significant weight and no adverse view should be taken of the delay. The submission notes that the applicant was a relatively disengaged individual prior to and at the time of lodging his protection application, having lost his passport, becoming unlawful and staying off and on at his friends’ house whilst also living rough at times. It was argued that to suggest an individual should have sought information from the Department website is unfair and irrational and in his case is additionally unreasonable given he was an unlawful non-citizen who had lost his passport and waited a few months after his friends applied to see if there were any negative consequences for them and that it is reasonable he did not try and consult the Department website.

17. I have considered the submission, but also the case law and the guidance in the Tribunal Guidelines on the assessment of credibility.[10] As set out above in these reasons, the delay here is not the sole reason for doubting the applicant’s claims, but it is, I find, a rational consideration open on the material in this case. I have had regard to his explanations but I find none of these to be convincing. The applicant’s claims are that he arrived in Australia having been harmed and threatened, but intending to return. Even if this is accepted, by sometime in 2009 his father had told him it was not safe and not to return. The applicant’s student visa then ceased around 2011 according to his evidence (and I do not accept he was not aware that his visa had ceased, and note that his evidence on this was contradictory, saying he did not find out he was without a visa as he lost his passport, but then saying that if he had gone to the Embassy they would say his visa has expired and send him back). The applicant has given a range of reasons why he did not apply for protection earlier than 2013, none of which I find plausible and reasonable. The applicant had lived in Australia since 2008, had done an English course, and had the motivation from 2009 and his father telling him not to return to seek ways in which he could remain in Australia. Despite this, his student visa ceased and he did nothing, remaining unlawful, and therefore subject to removal, for 2 ½ years before he applied. I do not accept that the applicant was homeless or living rough, either for the whole period or off and on in 2011 to 2013 or at any other time given that he has provided addresses where he stated he lived during these times in his protection application. I do not find any of the arguments advanced in the submission useful given my continuing concerns, and whilst I am willing to accept that there may be situations where it is reasonable for a person not to physically approach the Department to resolve their immigration status, as I explored with the applicant he could have found this information online with no risk or fear of being apprehended. Given his qualities of having a level of English, having been here since 2008, and having a [degree], I do not consider this expectation to be unreasonable. I do not accept that my concerns are a personal opinion of how the applicant should have behaved – the delay here is an objective fact and I explored with him my concerns with that delay and he provided explanations for that delay which I find are insufficient and do not explain or support his claims for the delay in this case. I find that the failure of the applicant to apply for protection earlier leads me to have further concerns with the applicant’s credibility and to disbelieve the genuineness and extent of his claimed subjective fear of persecution and significant harm.

    Conclusions on credibility

    [10] AAT, Migration & Refugee Division - Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility, July 2015, p. 7,

1. As above, I have considerable and far reaching concerns with the applicant’s credibility in this case. Given the concerns, and my findings above, I have reached a state of concern with his claims and how he has made them, the accompanying documents and the delay which lead me to find that the applicant is not a witness of truth and not credible in making his claims for protection. I further find, as above, that I can place no weight on any of the documents provided by the applicant in terms of supporting his claims or assessing the veracity of those claims. As I noted to the applicant at hearing, having arrived at such a view of his credibility, I find I can place no weight on his ‘second set of claims’, that is, those he has made since June 2014 onwards. I therefore make the following findings on the claims of the applicant.

   Findings on claims of applicant

2. On the basis of the evidence before me I accept that the applicant is a Coptic Christian, as are his family. I also accept, consistent as it is with country information, that he may have been bullied and harassed by Muslim students whilst at [high school] in his religious studies classes as described in his protection visa application. I do not accept, however, that this harm reached the level of serious harm, nor that this led to [an injury] as he claimed at one point. I accept that the applicant came here as a student to complete his studies. I accept that in 2013 when the applicant lodged his application for protection there was some violence associated with the removal of Morsi and that there was anger and some attacks directed towards Coptic Christians as the most prominent group supporting the removal of Morsi by SCAF and El-Sisi.

3. I do not accept that he or his family have suffered serious or significant harm in the manner he claims. On the basis of my credibility findings above I make the following findings:

   ·     I do not accept that the bullying and harassment he experienced at [high school] accepted above continued after he left and started attending the institute in [City 1], either from [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C] or anyone else;

   ·     I find that [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C] are an invention of the applicant and I do not accept that these people have harmed him at any time;

   ·      I do not accept that the focus of abuse shifted from school bullying in religious classes, which I have accepted above, to being bullied outside school in either his home area at any stage or at the institute in [City 1];

   ·     I do not accept that these three or anyone else pressured him to convert to Islam, nor that they abused him in public and made fun of his religion and that on one occasion they threatened him with a knife to say the Shahada in front of them. I do not accept that the applicant has said the Shahada, to anyone, at any time, nor that he was pushed to make this public or to go pray at mosque. I find that the applicant has not converted, either voluntarily or under duress, to Islam, at any time;

   ·     I do not accept that these three or anyone else came to the [business] he worked at and demanded money from him there.

   ·     I do not accept that, apart from for reasons of his religion, that he was singled out at school or anywhere else because of his weak body structure, being anti-social or any other reason;

   ·     I do not accept that he was targeted for specific harm or extorted for his pocket money by [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C] or anyone else;

   ·     I do not accept that these three or anyone else found out he was planning to move to Australia and arranged for him to give them money or any other assistance and they threatened if he did not they would harm his family;

   ·     I do not accept that the applicant had any contact with these three or anyone else in Australia;

   ·     I do not accept that at the end of 2009 the three boys approached his family and told the applicant’s family that he has converted to Islam and asked his family to pay them some money;

   ·     I do not accept that they came to the family home saying one of their friends wished to marry the applicant’s sister;

   ·     I do not accept that the bullies followed his father, nor that they once tried to hit his father with a car, nor that his father reported this to the police but the police did not take any action. I do not accept that the applicant’s father sold his [business] in October 2010 because of the threats or for any connected reason, nor that they have demanded money from his father nor that his father married the applicant’s sisters to keep them safe;

   ·     I do not accept that there were any bullies or three boys or three men called [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C], and I do not accept that [Mr C] was [the] [relative] of [a Salafist], and find that the applicant has invented this association to strengthen his claims for protection on the basis of my credibility findings;

   ·     I do not accept that the applicant has been harmed or threatened by anyone aligned with the former President and the Muslim Brotherhood;

   ·     I do not accept that the bullies fabricated a marriage between the applicant and one of their sisters and then claimed the applicant had deserted Islam and the sister and had tried to convert the sister to Christianity, and demanded the applicant’s family’s second property to live in;

   ·     I do not accept that he has been accused by these three or anyone else of converting to Islam, marrying a Muslim woman, attempting to convert her to Christianity or beating or abandoning his wife or defaming Islam;

   ·     I do not accept that a report has been made to the police about the applicant in 2013 or at any other time, nor that this resulted in an investigation and decree from the prosecutor seeking to question the applicant and have his name placed on the watch list at all ports. I do not accept that there is a warrant for his arrest;

   ·     I find that the authorities have no interest in the applicant for the reasons claimed or any other reasons.

4. On the basis of these findings, I find that the applicant will not be harmed for any reason connected to the claims I have rejected. I do not accept that the applicant will be harmed by three people called [Mr A], [Mr B] and [Mr C], or anyone else who claim he has converted to Islam and married one of their sisters, on return to Egypt.

5. I do not accept he will be harmed by authorities for any of the reasons I have rejected above, nor for any other reason. I do not accept that his name is on the watch list at all ports nor that there is a warrant for his arrest.

6. I do not accept he will be harmed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists or any other extremist or Muslim groups.

7. The applicant also raised a further issue at hearing about the true age of [Mr C]. He said that he was afraid that if he returned and said [Mr C] was not [age] when he and his [relative] had [assaulted someone] in 2013, and had witnessed against the applicant but lied about his age and if the applicant revealed this he would be in danger. I do not accept that the applicant has had any association with, nor that [Mr C] was a witness to a police report about the applicant, nor a marriage certificate, and I do not accept that the applicant will raise the age of [Mr C] with anyone on return given he has not actual association with him, nor that he would be harmed as a result.

   Sectarian violence

8. The applicant fears sectarian violence on return. I discussed with him at hearing my assessment of the country information I had had regard to. I noted that I accepted that following the January 2011 revolution, there was a reduction in law and order and that Copts in Egypt may have felt this disproportionately, that:

   DFAT is aware of reports during this period of harassment and intimidation of Copts (and moderate Muslims) by more conservative Muslims, including of sporadic harassment of women with uncovered hair. There were anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged — or cajoled — to convert to Islam. However, although significant community tensions remain in some areas of Upper Egypt (particularly Minya), there have been substantial improvements under the Sisi administration in terms of personal safety and freedom of worship for Copts. DFAT assesses that most Copts from all walks of life live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, particularly in urban centres.[11]

   [11] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015, [3.36].

9. I noted, however, that:

   Notwithstanding the overall rise in the number of violent incidents in recent decades … DFAT assesses that day-to-day life for most Copts in Egypt is not overtly affected by communal tensions. Most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity. However, small-scale disputes (such as neighbourhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community-level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas.[12]

   [12] DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015, [2.20],  materially the same information as in the most recent DFAT Country Report – Egypt, 19 May 2017 at [3.18] – [3.24]

10. I note that information from a range of sources indicates that Coptic Christians were not at a general risk of persecution or ill treatment in large urban areas such as Cairo where there was a diverse, non-segregated population, and were generally free to practice their religion.[13] I note that since Sisi had come to power there had not been State violence against Copts, and notably fewer sectarian attacks overall[14] (whilst acknowledging the recent attacks); that although there had been an outbreak of attacks against Coptic targets (generally Churches) by Muslim Brotherhood supporters immediately after the removal of Morsi in July and August 2013, that a police and military crackdown since then had led to an end of widespread violence against Coptic targets, that since Sisi came to power widespread attacks against Coptic targets had ceased, and that localised attacks are much more likely to occur in segregated villages, rural and regional areas and particularly in the Provinces of Minya and Assiut[15] and authorities are committed to preventing them.[16] I note Sisi had made statements in support of tolerance and moderation and had attended Coptic Christmas mass in 2016, the first serving Egyptian leader to do so.[17]

    [13] MS (Coptic Christians) Egypt CG [2013] UKUT 00611 (IAC), consistent with the previous and most recent DFAT Country Report – Egypt, 19 May 2017 at [3.18].

    [14] See the data visualisation at which details all sectarian incidents July 2012 – July 2017; DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015.

    [15] Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, Eshhad quarterly report, April  - June 2016, Farid, S., “Is Upper Egypt becoming the epicenter for sectarian violence?”, Al-Arabiya English, 29 July 2016, DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts, 24 November 2015; United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2016 Annual report, Egypt, April 2016.

    [17] “Egypt's Sisi attends Coptic Christmas mass for second straight year”, 7 January 2016, Ahram Online,

I indicated at the hearing that I may infer from this information that the applicant could return to Egypt, live and worship without any real chance or real risk of him being harmed.

In response the applicant said that the violence has not changed, it is the ideology in their minds, when Muslims think that there are Jews and Christians and that the West are infidels, it is an ideology, this will not change and the government cannot change that. He said that people don’t talk about all the incidents; it is only when something major happens or the media takes notice of it.

I have had regard to the arguments made in submissions and the country information referred to and the press release from the Bishop and from the Assistant Minister. I have had regard to the country information included with the post-hearing submissions, and in particular the 28 June 2017 submission. This claims that the situation for Coptic Christians in Egypt has significantly deteriorated in the last seven months, beginning with the attack on 11 December 2016. The submission notes that the applicant had used to visit a Church [distance] from his home in the complex which was attacked in the December 2016 attack, and that in the May 2017 attack in Minya the gunmen had demanded that the men say the Shahada, which had further increased the applicant’s fear given it reflected his past persecution in Egypt. The submission quotes the DFAT Country Information Report Egypt 2017 in listing attacks on Coptic Church services and individuals claimed by Islamic State including the 11 December 2016 attack, a February 2017 video from ‘IS Egypt’ calling for the targeting of Coptic Christians, the 9 April 2017 Palm Sunday attacks on Church services in Tanta and Alexandria, the fleeing of Christian families from Northern Sinai, and the 26 May 2017 attack in Minya. It is argued that the state is not effectively protecting Coptic Christians.

I accept the general claims that there have been four serious attacks on Coptic services or groups of Copts which have led to a large number of deaths and injuries, that IS or IS affiliated groups wish to target Copts in Egypt, and that state protection for Copts, in rural areas, may be inadequate, and that incidences of sectarian violence have not been dealt with consistently by the authorities. I note that President Sisi and the government have condemned these attacks, declared a state of Emergency on 10 April 2017 in response to the Palm Sunday attacks, and that Muslim leaders, Muslim Brotherhood and other Egyptian militant Islamist groups have condemned the attacks.[18] Having considered the information before me I find that these incidents, whilst horrific, do not represent a significant increase in violence or attacks against Copts when measured against the trends in the data as set out in Eshhad,[19] and the analysis by DFAT of the day-to-day lives of Coptic Christians in Egypt such as to lead to a real chance or a real risk of the applicant being harmed if he was to return. I note also that the country information indicates that the authorities have demonstrated a willingness to prevent such attacks reoccurring. I note also that, consistent with the longer term data, several of the incidents listed in the submission have occurred in rural areas of Egypt rather that in an urban area such as the applicant’s home area of Cairo. Whilst the applicant has claimed that the Cathedral complex at which the attack in December 2016 happened is [distance] from his home, I note the willingness of the authorities to prevent such attacks reoccurring, the ability of the state to prevent attacks in urban rather than rural areas, and the applicant’s claim that he attended there one day of the week, and find that there is only a remote, as opposed to real, chance that the Cathedral complex claimed to be [distance] from his home would be attacked on the one day of the week that he attended there now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Considering the incidents in the context of all other available information, I do not accept that these recent attacks are indicative of an increased risk to a Coptic man such as the applicant who lives in an urban area in Cairo such as to lead to a real chance or a real risk of the applicant being harmed as a practicing Coptic Christian if he was to return now or in the reasonably foreseeable future

[18] Michaelson, R., “Egypt: Three days of mourning declared after 25 people killed in Cairo bomb,” the Guardian, 12 December 2016; “Islamic State claims responsibility for Cairo church bombing,” AP / the Guardian, 14 December 2016, B. Roggio, “Islamic State claims Cairo church bombing part of its ‘war on polytheism’”, The Long War Journal,13 December 2016; BBC News, “Egypt declares state of emergency after deadly church attacks”, 10 April 2017, ABC News, “Gunmen kill 28 Coptic Christians on buses bound for Egyptian monastery”, 27 May 2017,

[19] See the data visualisation at which details all sectarian incidents July 2012 – July 2017

I have weighed the country information before me. I have taken into account all of the information before me. I have given particular weight to that information quoted above which is detailed, reasonably objective and contemporaneous. This information, I find, establishes that Coptic Christians do not face a real chance of being persecuted or significantly harmed now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, that the majority of incidents against Copts, despite the recent incidents, occur in regional areas of Egypt including the Sinai and Upper Egypt, that Copts and Muslims in urban areas live largely peacefully together, and that incidences of serious or significant harm in these urban areas, even when considered in light of the recent attacks, are rare enough to be considered remote. I further find that Sisi has committed to and has taken steps to improve the security situation for all Egyptians and for Copts in particular and has taken steps to improve their conditions of worship.

I find on the information before me and my findings above that there is no real chance or real risk of the applicant being harmed in sectarian violence if he returns to his home area, the urban area of Cairo in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Generalised violence

A claim has also been made that the applicant fears generalised violence on return to Egypt. He claims that Egypt is in turmoil and nowhere is safe. In discussing with him the security situation for Copts I also noted the general security situation had improved under Sisi.[20] As above, generalised violence is also affected by the divide between urban areas, where that state is able to exercise effective control,[21] and the rural and remote areas where it is less able to do so.

[20] DFAT Country information report Egypt, 19 May 2017, 2.27, referenced in most recent submission and substantially the same as information put to the applicant at hearing.

[21] MS (Coptic Christians) Egypt CG [2013] UKUT 00611 (IAC).

I find on the country information before me that there is no real chance or real risk of the applicant being harmed in generalised violence if he returns to the urban area of Cairo in the reasonably foreseeable future.

Further claims

The applicant concedes that his father was able to worship in peace, and that despite his concerns for them, his sisters have not been harmed. Whilst he claims his mother is in ill health he does not claim that she has been harmed. I find therefore that the applicant can return and, as his family does, continue to worship with no real chance or real risk of being harmed.

I discussed with the applicant the process of returning and noted that it would appear he could be issued with a replacement passport by the Egyptian Embassy with no difficulties and he could then return lawfully to Egypt, that I may not accept that the authorities would know, or would care if they did know, that he would be returning as a failed asylum seeker, given he had departed lawfully, had come on a student visa and the confidentiality of the protection process, and that I was not sure on the information before me that he would be perceived as rich for living in Australia for some years.[22] The applicant did not disagree with these views or offer arguments against them. I find that the applicant would be able to obtain a replacement Egyptian passport from the Egyptian Embassy with the birth certificate he provided to the Department, I find that the authorities would not be aware that he would return as a failed asylum seeker given that he departed lawfully, came on a student visa and that, I find, the protection process is confidential. I find there is very little chance of his failed asylum seeker status coming to the attention of the Egyptian authorities. However, even if it did, I find that the country information indicates that the Egyptian authorities generally pay little regard to failed asylum seekers on return, and do not face adverse attention on account of their failed application for asylum. [23] I find therefore that there is no real chance or real risk of the applicant being harmed on return for reasons of his status as a failed asylum seeker or any related reason on return, now or in the foreseeable future. . I note that many Egyptian nationals live in Australia, and I have been unable to find information indicating they, or returnees from other countries, are perceived as wealthy for reason of their time in a foreign country nor that they are harmed for this reason,[24] nor has any information been brought to my attention to suggest this, and further noting that the applicant did not press this claim at hearing, I find on the information before me that there is no real chance or real risk of the applicant being harmed on return to Egypt because he is perceived as being rich for living in Australia or a foreign country for a number of years. .

[22] See DFAT Country information report Egypt, 19 May 2017, [5.32] –[5.34]  substantially the same as DFAT Country information report Egypt, 28 January 2014 at [5.45] – [5.46].

[23] See DFAT Country information report Egypt, 19 May 2017, [5.32] –[5.34]  substantially the same as DFAT Country information report Egypt, 28 January 2014 at [5.45] – [5.46].

[24] Having searched Refworld, the Departmental country information and google searches.

Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of harm on return for a convention reason?

1. I have assessed the applicant’s claims as accepted, that he is a Coptic Christian, as are his family, that his family according to his evidence have been free to worship, and I also accept, that he was bullied and harassed by Muslim students whilst at [high school] in his religious studies classes many years ago. I accept that the applicant came here as a student to complete his studies. I accept that the applicant has some level of subjective fear of returning to Egypt as a Coptic Christian.

2. On the basis of my findings above, I find that the applicant can return to Egypt and that there is no real chance that he will be harmed on return for any reason. I find that the applicant can return to Cairo, an urban, densely populated and non-segregated area which the country information demonstrates is not as susceptible to sectarian violence, and live in and worship as he wishes. I do not accept that the bullying and harassment he experienced continued past schooling at [high school], and I do not accept that there is any reason or prospect he will be bullied or harassed in this manner now that he is no longer at school. I do not accept that he has a ‘weak body structure’ or that he will be harmed for any reason connected to this.

3. I do not accept that there is a real chance, as opposed to one that is remote, that he will be harmed for reasons of his religion as a Coptic Christian, either by the three men, the authorities, the Muslim brotherhood, ISIS or other extremists or anyone else on return to Egypt, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

4. I do not accept that there is a real chance that he will be harmed for reasons of his political opinion as a person who has been  charged with disdaining the Islamic religion, or any other charges by the authorities or anyone else on return to Egypt, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.

5. I have considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively. On the basis of my findings above I find that there is no real chance of the applicant being seriously harmed for reasons of the applicant’s religion, actual or imputed political opinion, membership of his family or for any other reason if he returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. His fear is not well-founded.

   Are there substantial grounds to believe there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm?

6. I have considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm on being returned to his receiving country of Egypt. I have found above that there is no real chance that he will be seriously harmed on return in the reasonably foreseeable future for any of the reasons claimed or any other reason apparent. At hearing I asked the applicant if he feared harm for any other reason and he did not indicate any other basis to fear harm. I have considered the claims of harm, individually and cumulatively, of the applicant, and my assessment of the situation for the applicant if he returns to his home area of Cairo in Egypt. In particular I have had regard to my findings in relation to sectarian and generalised violence above.

7. I find, on the basis of my findings above, that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm in Egypt from the three men, the authorities, the Muslim brotherhood, ISIS or other extremists or anyone else for any of the reasons identified above.

8. Therefore, having regard to these findings and the findings above, both individually and cumulatively, I find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm upon being removed from Australia to Egypt.

   Ministerial intervention

9. I have had regard to the media release from the Honourable Alex Hawke, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. I note that the media release indicates the intention of the Minister to review cases of Copts in Australia. I note the Minister highlights that like any other visa applicant, each case will be assessed on its merits with careful consideration given to the identity, authenticity of documents, credibility of claims and character of the applicant. The Tribunal has completed an assessment of the applicant’s claims in line with this description. If the applicant wishes, he has the capacity to seek a more favourable outcome from the Minister.

   Conclusion

10. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

11. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

12. 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

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

    Sean Baker
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT A - RELEVANT LAW

    1.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.

    2.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).

    3.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.

    4.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’).

    5.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.

    Credibility

    6.As Beaumont J observed in Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451, ‘in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for’. However this should not lead to ‘an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by suppliants’. As the Full Court of the Federal Court (von Doussa, Moore and Sackville JJ) observed in Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (unreported, 7 November 1997):

    ‘Where there is conflicting evidence from different sources, questions of credit of witnesses may have to be resolved.  The RRT is also entitled to attribute greater weight to one piece of evidence as against another, and to act on its opinion that one version of the facts is more probable than another’ (citing Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 281-282)

    7.As the Full Court noted in that case, this statement of principle is subject to the qualification explained by the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 576 per Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ where they observed that:

    ‘in determining whether there is a real chance that an event will occur, or will occur for a particular reason, the degree of probability that similar events have or have not occurred for particular reasons in the past is relevant in determining the chance that the event or the reason will occur in the future.’

    8.If, however, the Tribunal has ‘no real doubt’ that the claimed events did not occur, it will not be necessary for it to consider the possibility that its findings might be wrong: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 per Sackville J (with whom North J agreed) at 241. Furthermore, as the Full Court of the Federal Court (O’Connor, Branson and Marshall JJ) observed in Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 at 558-9, there is no rule that a decision-maker concerned to evaluate the testimony of a person who claims to be a refugee in Australia may not reject an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds unless there are no possible explanations for any delay in the making of claims or for any evidentiary inconsistencies. Nor is there a rule that a decision-maker must hold a ‘positive state of disbelief’ before making an adverse credibility assessment in a refugee case.