1613162 (REFUGEE) - [2019] AATA 6852

1613162 (REFUGEE) [2019] AATA 6852 (6 NOVEMBER 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1613162
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Egypt
MEMBER:Peter Vlahos
DATE:6 November 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Statement made on 06 November 2019 at 5:27am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – Christian – particular social group – Egyptian Coptic Christians – Evangelical Baptist – missionary worker in Muslim countries – fears harm from ultranationalists and religious fanatics – past discrimination and persecution – family members targeted – lack of protection from Egyptian authorities – relocation in home country not feasible – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 91R
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Abede v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Alamdar v MIMA [2001] FCA 1244
Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225
Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 29
Lama v MIMA (1999) 57 ALD 613
Lama v MIMA [1999] FCA 1620
MIEA v Respondent A and B (1995) 57 FCR 309
SZDNE v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 717
Wang v MIMA (2000) 105 FCR 548
Weheliye v MIMA [2001] FCA 1222
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 26 May 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa on 4 March 2014. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the application for Protection visa did not satisfy subsection 36(2) of the Migration Act.
On 8 June 2016 the applicant made an application to the Tribunal to review the Department’s decision to refuse him a Protection visa.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 October 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an Arab interpreter.
The applicant was represented by his legal counsel and registered migration agent.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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, he or she 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.
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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of the applicant. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Country of origin for Convention reasons
Based on copies of the applicant’s passport, which were provided to the Department and the Tribunal[1] at the hearing, the applicant oral and written evidence, and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of the Arab Republic of Egypt and her claims gave been assessed against that country in relation to ss.36(2)(a), the refugee provision and s.36(2)(aa) the complementary protection criteria of the Act. On this basis, taking into consideration the above-mentioned evidence, the Tribunal further finds and accepts the applicants’ identities as claimed.
[1] AAT File
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicants. The Tribunal also has had regard to material referred in the delegate’s decision.[2] The applicant provided a copy of the Department’s record of decision to the Tribunal with her review application.
Applicant’s Migration History
[2] Ibid Folio [25] et.al
On 5 April 1994 the applicant was granted a [temporary] visa, which was valid until 5 April 1995. [In] May 1994 the applicant arrived in Australia and [in] September 1994 she departed Australia. On 28 September 2011 the applicant applied for a [Tourist] visa and that visa was refused on 3 October 2011. On 17 October 2012 the applicant applied for a [Tourist] visa and that visa was refused by the Department on 25 October 2012. On 22 September 2013 the applicant applied for a further Tourist visa and on 21 October 2013 she was granted a [Visitor] visa which came into effect until 6 March 2014. [In] December 2013 the applicant arrived in Australia. On 4 March 2014 the applicant applied for a Protection visa (XA 866).
The applicant’s claim for Protection
The applicant made the following written claims to Department in support of her application for a Protection visa:
·The applicant is a [female] born in the city of Cairo, Egypt. She has resided in [City 1], Port Said, Egypt. She speaks and reads Arabic and converses and writes in the English language but to a limited degree.
·The applicant’s freedom to practice her religion has been/and will be violated – for example, a church was attacked by gunfire and people stopped attending due to safety fears, a police car in front of the church was set on fire.
·The authorities in Egypt cannot protect them (Christians) because the country is in chaos – no protection from police as they are under threat themselves – cannot relocate, because the whole country is unsafe.
·The applicant’s mother and cousins are all threatened in Egypt and face the same issues as the applicant – which affects her career and livelihood as she cannot move freely or travel. Her [relative] was also persecuted in October 2013, two men on motorcycles stopped and started shouting verbal abuse at her, and she was grubbed by the passenger.
·This incident had affected the applicant emotionally and mentally. The applicant constantly worries about her mother’s and her own safety, and takes medication for stress.
·The ‘barbaric’ behaviour and ‘terrorism’ practiced by Islamic groups amounts to ‘genocide’ of Coptic Christians in Egypt.[3]
·There is no justice for the Coptic/Christians in Egypt. The authorities have not provided protection for her in the past and she will not be safe if she returns to Egypt.
·The Military supreme council is ruling the country – total breakdown of law and order in Egypt.[4]
·Kidnapping, sexual abuse and forced conversion of Christian women is an epidemic. Copts are treated as second class citizens by the government and Islamic groups. If the applicant returns, she will encounter further persecution and forced to convert to Islam if she does not, she will be killed or assaulted
·Recent catastrophic events in the political, social and economic environment of Egypt have had a destructive effect on her emotional wellbeing. The applicant feels vulnerable, distressed and disturbed.
What was the Department’s treatment of the applicant’s claims?
[3] On 24 November 2010 Egyptian security forces launched an attack against Coptic Christians at Al Omrania (Giza) to stop the construction of a church building. Two Coptic Christians were killed by the police. In 2011- in Maspero, army tanks drove over unarmed Christians and 26 people were killed. No investigation was conducted – indicating that the then ruling regime was involved.
[4] The Fall of Mubarak and Morsi regimes have left the country with little to no law enforcement and sparked hatred against Christians. Muslims freely revenge without fear of prosecution. Sharia Law will be enforced on everyone. The applicant cannot live in a country where her basic human rights, including religious freedom, are impugned and obscene laws imposed on her.
The delegate in his consideration of the applicant’s case determined the following issues, which had a direct effect on the Department refusing to allow the applicant a Protection visa:
·The delegate did not accept that the applicant’s documents in support of her Protection Application were genuine.[5]
[5] See Department’s decision Record , in AAT File, Folio [10]-[23]
·The applicant could not provide an explanation as to why this was the case.
·With reference to the [Organisation 1 letter] the applicant‘s letter was considered not genuine. The email provided on the letter was a gmail not email address.
·The [Organisation 1] website refers to a group known as ‘[Group 1]’, it has its own domain ([website]) and emails are based on this domain. The logo on the letter submitted matches but the name does not. [Organisation 1] website uses name consistently with international branches. The Delegate had serious doubt as to the letter’s.
·With reference to Police Reports – the applicant claims that the police reports were issued in November 2013 and related to two incidents – one involving both the applicant and her mother. The Delegate considered the reports had been printed on plain paper, there was no letterhead or any printed sections. The Delegate did not accept them as correct – as the stamps affixed on the documents were indistinct and distorted.
Inconsistencies in relation to Visitor visa information
·When the applicant applied for a Visitor visa on 22 September 2013, she claimed she was self-employed and the owner of a business, and provided documents to confirm the existence of the business but at the Protection visa interview she claimed that she had never worked in Egypt and that she had forged the documents to leave the country.
·The applicant then claimed that she had the business but it was not operating and she did not work. The Delegate noted that in Part C of the application form the applicant stated that she was unemployed and according to Form 80 she was employed as an [Occupation 1] from September 2013- February 2014. It was noted that her current passport issued [in] 2013 states her profession as [Occupation 1].
·On the visa application the applicant claimed she was engaged to [Mr A] and listed him as a family member not travelling to Australia. Applicant stated she became engaged to her [cousin], so he could travel to [Country 1], as he was not engaged or married, he could not get a visa, but his application was rejected and they broke up.
·At the protection visa interview, the delegate asked the applicant if she had provided accurate information in her Visitor visa application and her response was that she had done so correctly. However, according to the delegate, given the inconsistencies in relation to her work history and willingness to provide misleading information in support of the Visitor visa, casted doubt (according to the delegate) on the applicant’s credibility as far as it concerned the information provided on her application for a Protection visa.
·Conclusion: Given concerns relating to documents, delegate placed limited weight on the documents provided. Country information states that document fraud rife in Egypt and the use of counterfeit documents prevalent.
Is the harm feared for a convention reason?
·Applicant fears attack because she is a Coptic Christian woman with no support in Egypt. She fears that that she will not be able to practice her religion and will be forced to convert to Islam.
·Delegate considers that fear of harm is based on religion as a ‘Christian’ and membership of a particular social group, namely single Christian women in Egypt.
Does the fear harmed amount to persecution?
·Applicant fears attack because she is a Coptic Orthodox woman with no support in Egypt. She fears that she will not be able to practice her religion freely in Egypt.
Is the fear well founded?
·Religion: In her statutory declaration, that applicant claimed that she attended the Coptic Orthodox church throughout Egypt.
·Applicant claimed in her interview that she was targeted because people knew she went to [Country 2] to serve the Church.
·Applicant submitted a letter relating to her evangelical work for the following periods: [Country 2] 2007-2008, Egypt 2009 and [Country 3] 2010-2012, but delegate had concerns about the authenticity of the documents.
·Applicant’s representative claimed the applicant was proselytising but the applicant did not make that claim herself in her statutory declaration.
·Delegate was of the opinion that the applicant had embellished her claims to support her application for protection.
·Single women in Egypt – the delegate does not accept the applicant is susceptible to this type of targeting.
·Harassment and Attacks: Applicant stated that there was a cigarette/tobacco shop in her street and that every time she walked past a man would swear at her and refer to Christians as infidels.
·29.11.2013, another incident occurred when shopping with her mother which was reported to the police.
·Applicant fears that if she returned to Egypt there was a threat everywhere by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
·Applicant claimed constant harassment in Egypt. Delegate did not accept this.
·
On balance of the available country information, the delegate did not accept that the applicant will be seriously harmed or persecuted for a Convention reason if she returned to Egypt.

COUNTRY INFORMATION – COPTIC CHRISTIANS IN EGYPT AND SECTARIAN VIOLENCE
The following information is included to provide a context for assessing the applicant's claims. Unless otherwise stated it is based on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Egypt and Thematic Report on Egyptian Copts, both issued on 24 November 2015. The Tribunal also took note of the new DFAT country information report on Egypt and its contents dated 17 June 2019.
Extracts form this latest report as far as it concerns matters raised in this application and to which the Tribunal referenced or were referred to are found in the “appendix” which attaches to this decision.
Coptic Christians comprise some 10 per cent of Egypt's population of 83 million. They are present in most parts of the country and are represented at all levels of society. Copts have access to all levels of education, and are present in most areas of employment. There are prominent and influential Copts in politics, business and the arts. However, Copts have long faced some degree of societal discrimination. Few Copts hold senior positions in institutions such as the military, universities and the public service. There is also sporadic harassment of Christians in some areas, for example targeting women with uncovered hair. Discrimination and prejudice are more of a problem in poorer urban and rural area.
The Egyptian Constitution recognizes Christianity, along with Islam and Judaism and grants Copts the same rights and freedoms as other Egyptians.
However, Egypt is overwhelmingly a Sunni Muslim country and Egyptian laws and long-standing practices are generally designed to safeguard the majority. The two problems mentioned most frequently as impacting on Christian practice are restrictions on building or repairing churches and the operation of laws banning “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) or inciting sectarian strife”, commonly referred to as blasphemy law.
Sectarian tensions have increased in Egypt since the 1970s, due in part to economic problems and to weakening of law and order mechanisms. The resulting outbreaks of sectarian violence have mostly taken the form of vandalism and destruction of property and have occurred mostly in Upper Egypt, although Cairo and Alexandria have also been affected.
Egypt has experienced a number of significant changes in recent years. The Mubarak regime was overthrown in January 2011 and replaced with a military council which ruled until elections in June 2012, which were won by Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi's government was removed by the military in July 2013 and replaced with a military dominated interim government which banned the Muslim Brotherhood in December 2013 and arrested between 22,000 and 29,000 Muslim Brotherhood supporters or suspected members, of whom some 7,000 remained in pre-trail detention in July 2014.[6] Elections held in May 2014 saw former defence Minister Abdul Fatah al-Sisi elected President
[6] Immigration Report pp 49-50 and Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2015, available at
While there is no evidence of a significant increase in sectarian violence during the time Morsi was President, there was an increase in the number of ultra conservative Islamist groups such as Salafist parties and in the frequency of negative and sometimes inflammatory anti-Christian statements which in turn contributed to an increase of threats and attacks on Christian communities in some areas.[7]
[7] Issues Paper Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christian & State Protection, Department of Immigration and Border Protection 3 March 2012 [Immigration Report] pp 54-55 and DFAT Thematic Report. 3.36

Coptic Christians were greatly concerned about their future under an Islamist government and most welcomed the military intervention which removed Morsi. This contributed to the most serious outbreak of anti-Christian sectarian violence in recent times, which occurred in July and August 2013 when supporters of President Morsi attacked Christian churches, property and people. According to DFAT this violence was not orchestrated by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, but was carried out by radical supporters of the group in retaliation for what they saw as the significant role Christians played in Morsi's removal.
According to DFAT there has been a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks against Copts under the Sisi administration. In a similar vein the US Committee for International Religious Freedom 2015, which covers 2014 and early 2015 stated that, while sporadic violence continued, the number and severity of violence incidents targeting Copts and their property had decreased significantly since the previous year.
In their Thematic Report of November 2015 DFAT stated that it was their assessment that the day to day life for most Coptic Christians was not overtly affected by communal tensions adding that:
...most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialize together with little regard to each other's religious identity.
However, small-scale disputes (such as neighborhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community-level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas. Spikes in communal tensions can also coincide with broader political upheavals (2.20).
Similarly, after reviewing information from a range of sources the UK Border Agency concluded in its Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians report of 30 June 2014, 'although Christians do face personal and collective societal discrimination and repeated instances of sectarian violence, Christians in Egypt are not in general at risk of persecution or ill-treatment.’[8]
[8] Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians’, UK Border Agency, 30 June 2014, pp.7-8, available at
However, the most recent United States International Religious Freedom Report[9] indicates that the Egyptian government failed to respond to or prevent sectarian violence in some cases, in particular outside of major cities according to human rights advocates and continued to hold “reconciliation sessions” to address incidents of sectarian violence which adopted findings favoring members of the majority Muslim community most of the time. “Reconciliation sessions” after sectarian attacks were used instead of prosecuting perpetrators and these sessions preclude recourse to the judicial system because in most cases the parties agreed to drop all formal charges and lawsuits and stipulated by the terms of the session. They failed to prosecute It was also reported that religious minorities continued to face significant threats of sectarian violence according to religious and human rights groups. There were also reports of lethal sectarian violence continuing over the year.
[9] United States, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, International Religious Freedom Report for 2015
The November 2015 Thematic Report also indicates that Copts have access to state protection in Egypt. According to the report:
DFAT assesses that on a day-to-day basis in urban areas, the state has a capacity and willingness to provide protection to Copts, and generally does so. Copts facing harassment are able to go to a local police station for protection in these areas. DFAT assesses that, under the Sisi Government, the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances. However, societal discrimination may impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.
Discrimination
Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited under Egyptian law; however Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Amnesty International reports that it and other human rights organisations have documented a pattern of discrimination against Coptic Christians in Egypt that has been prevalent for ‘decades’.[10] Similarly, the European parliamentary Research Service states that Egypt’s religious minorities, including Copts, have suffered for decades from discrimination.[11]
[10] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt: Security forces abandon Coptic Christians during deadly attack in Luxor, 23 July Accessed 17 December 2013 CX316551; Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094
[11] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights - Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.1 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion; however, in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[12] In October 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds.[13] The decree added Article 161(ii), which defines discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief’.[14] It establishes a minimum and maximum fines (from EGP30,000 (approximately AUD 4,929)[15] to EGP50,000 (AUD 8,216)) and/or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination. The article adds more severe penalties for government officials who commit a discriminatory act,[16] with a minimum sentence of three months’ imprisonment and/or a minimum fine of EGP50,000 (AUD 8,216) and a maximum fine of EGP100,000 (AUD 16,438).[17] USDOS reports, however, that the amendment does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[18] The report notes that during 2013 ‘there were no indications in the media that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.’[19] Similarly, the January DFAT 2014 report on Copts states that while ‘anti‑discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement’.[20]
[12] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[13] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[14] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013
[15] Based on foreign exchanges rates of 4 February 2014 obtained from US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[17] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013
[18] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[19] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[20] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
The 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an anti‑discrimination clause. Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief.[21] Although the Constitution reaffirms Islam as the state religion, it recognises Christianity as one of the ‘heavenly religions’ and acknowledges the Coptic Orthodox Church as an official sect of Christianity.[22] However, Minority Rights Group International states that ‘it remains to be seen whether there will be a substantive legal and policy shift towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life’.[23] Reporting on the likely effect of the Constitution, the EIPR states that ‘taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt, it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.’[24]
[21] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92048
[22] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158; ‘What’s new in Egypt’s draft constitution’ 2013, BBC News, 3 December Accessed 5 December 2013 CX316553
[23] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January 2014 CX317623
[24] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights - Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.6 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
Sources indicate that Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Several reports were located stating that despite initial optimism on the part of Copts, and public messages of support by President el-Sisi for the Coptic community, discrimination against Copts has continued since el-Sisi was elected.[25] Regarding societal discrimination, DFAT assesses that that ‘community prejudice’ against Copts is ‘pervasive’ but the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio‑economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low‑level and infrequent’ in middle class urban areas but ‘higher’ in poor urban and rural areas.[26] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Muslims across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[27] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims’ and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam.’[28] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination.’[29] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[30]
[25] Amin, S 2015, ‘What now for Egypt’s Christians?’, Ahram Online, 13 January Accessed 10 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1298; Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714; Kingsley, P 2015, ‘Egyptian President Attends Coptic Christmas Eve Mass in Cairo’, The Guardian, 8 January Accessed 6 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1385
[26] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[27] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[28] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.11 CIS27158
[29] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June, p.7 OG180885B8
[30] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094
Reports published by the United States Department of State,[31] Carnegie Endowment,[32] Open Democracy[33] and Ahram Online[34] between 2015 and 2013 all state that Copts face official discrimination in Egypt, particularly with respect to appointments to senior positions within the public sector, public universities, security forces, judiciary and Egyptian government. In its January 2014 report on Copts in Egypt, DFAT provided a somewhat different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination.[35] While DFAT reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[36] DFAT does report, however, that ‘societal discrimination can create a “glass ceiling” for promotions’ as ‘Copts tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles and in the upper ranks of the military and security services.’[37] According to DFAT ‘subtle favouritism and patronage could rule Copts out of senior positions.’[38]
[31] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, pp. 13-15 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[32] Brownlee, J 2013, Violence Against Copts in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406
[33] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714
[34] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714 Ahram Online is a state-owned English-language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic-language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About AhramOnline Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring 2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Center – Accessed 23 May 2013; Ezzat, D 2013, ‘Egyptian Christians struggle to overcome minority status’, Ahram Online, 27 September Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469
[35] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[36] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
[37] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
[38] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
The May 2017 DFAT Country Information Report[39] - Egypt indicates that Coptic Christians have experienced a changed security situation in Egypt. According to the report:
2.30Since December 2016, the Islamic State terrorist organisation has claimed responsibility for a series of major attacks targeting Coptic Christian churches. On 11 December 2016, an Islamic State suicide bomber targeted a church service in Cairo, killing 29 and injuring 49. On 19 February 2017, a group calling itself ‘IS Egypt’ released a video calling for the targeting of Coptic Christians. Two major attacks against Palm Sunday church services occurred on 9 April, both claimed by Islamic State. The first attack occurred in Tanta, killing 27 and injuring 70. The second occurred at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Alexandria, the historical seat of the Coptic Pope, killing at least 16 and injuring 66. Pope Tawadros, head of the Coptic Church, was delivering a service at the cathedral at the time, but escaped unharmed. In addition to these attacks on churches, around 154 Christian families fled the northern Sinai town of Al-Arish in January-February 2017 after seven Coptic Christians were reportedly killed by Islamic State-affiliated militants. The Grand Imam of al-Azhar strongly condemned the church attacks, while a faction of the Brotherhood also issued a statement of condemnation.
2.31In response to the Palm Sunday bombings, Sisi issued a Presidential Decree on 9 April 2017 declaring a nation-wide state of emergency, the first under the 2014 Constitution. The decree was passed unanimously by Parliament on 11 April. The state of emergency is governed by Law 162 of 1958, ‘The Emergency Law’. While the exact details of the Emergency Law and how it will be applied were unclear at the publication date, it is likely that the military will be granted extended powers. DFAT assess that detentions and arrests are likely to increase as a result of the declaration of a nation-wide state of emergency.
[39] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2017, DFAT Country Information Report- Egypt, 19 May, at pp.7-8
Preliminary matters considered by the Tribunal
(a) Documents of support provided by the applicant
The Tribunal in its review of this matter noted that the Department’s delegate expressed concerns about certain documents which were provided by the applicant in support of her application for a Protection visa.
The documents submitted in support of the application for Protection were:
·Copies of letters from the [Organisation 2] making references to the applicant and her mother.
·Copy of letter from [Organisation 1] for mother
·Copy of training certificates for mother
·Copy of Egyptian police reports
The delegate did not accept that these documents were genuine. In reference to the [Organisation 2] letter dated 30 November 2013, the delegate concluded without any expert assistance that ‘lines appear [ed] on the [letter’s] pages, fading in the image, the letterhead contained obvious errors…’ Therefore the document was a ‘fabricated’ one and was not taken into account. Similar conclusions were attached to the other documents.

The Tribunal concedes that the Department has on a daily basis encountered numerous instances involving forged documents which have been submitted by applicants in order to enhance and to prove their various migration or refugee claims. Indeed, from the Tribunal’s reading of the DFAT reports false documents originating supposedly from Egyptian authorities is a lucrative business.[40] However, any document submitted to the Department in support of a visa application, if its ‘authenticity’ is questioned it must therefore be sent to experts to provide that analysis and conclusion. In this instance, the delegate of the minister has drawn his own conclusions. The Tribunal cannot draw any inferences concerning the authenticity of any supporting document provided by the applicant on the basis that there is an ‘opinion’ which questions a document’s authenticity. Opinions and conclusions should in such situations be supported by independent expert advice. In this instance there was no such effort made by the Department and the Tribunal is not convinced that the documents were fabrications and therefore the Tribunal in coming to its conclusions on the issues of this case has considered the documents.
[40] CX32282827: Egypt Legal Process; Nasr City Public Prosecutions Office and Fraudulent documents, DFAT, 30 July 2014: ALSO, see DFAT Reports on Egypt, 2017 and 2019
The Tribunal also noted the written submissions on this issue provided by the applicant’s lawyers and migration agent and accepts their comments on the issue as persuasive and of assistance to the Tribunal’s consideration of the applicant’s overall claims.
(b) Inconsistencies in relation to a previous visitor visa information
The delegate made reference to applicant’s previous Visitor Visa application (22 September 2013) where it was claimed the applicant claimed being ‘self-employed’ and the ‘owner of a business, and had provided documents to prove the business’ existence. Later, at the interview the applicant claimed these documents were ‘forged’ in order to facilitate her quick exist from Egypt. The Tribunal in this instance is being called upon to determine whether or not the applicant fulfils the legislative criteria as provided for in s.36(2)(a) – that of a ‘refugee’ and failing that, whether the criteria of - ‘complementary protection’ as provided for in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act could be invoked to assist her. The Tribunal is not concerned in this instance with what the applicant has done in the past as far as it concerned other visa applications which were determined on their own sets of criteria. In this case, the Tribunal has narrow responsibility – it must decide on the facts as they are determined by evidence and vigorous probative questioning whether the applicant is a refugee or not. Indeed, the Tribunal is mindful of the observations of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abede v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at paragraph [191] which are as follows:
“…the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising. It is necessary always to bear in mind that an applicant for refugee status is, on one view of events, engaged in an often desperate battle for freedom, if not life itself…
and considers them a guide on how the Tribunal must dispense with its obligations in this case.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Is the applicant refugee as she claims?
The applicant claims to fear returning to Egypt because of the discrimination and persecution she would face as a ‘Christian’. The applicant also fears reprisals from ultranationalists and religious fanatics in Egypt because of her missionary work in other Arab countries as a Baptist Evangelical missionary. The Tribunal noted that the applicant has also claimed to be a Coptic Orthodox Christian in her Protection visa application also. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a Coptic Orthodox Christian who later in her life adopted the beliefs of an Evangelical Baptist. The Tribunal does not doubt the applicant’s Christian background and beliefs.
Country information referred to earlier in this decision confirms (that despite recent efforts to ameliorate communal violence and religious antagonisms by the Sisi Government) there is discrimination at all levels of Egyptian society against ‘Christians’. The Tribunal accepts this is religiously motivated and is aimed at all religious (non-Muslim) minorities. The applicant’s experiences in relation in seeking effective protection under the rule of law (in her area) within the Egyptian state apparatus because she and other family members are Christians is not unique.
Enforcement of a generally applicable law does not ordinarily constitute persecution for the purposes of the Convention,[41] for the reason that enforcement of such a law does not ordinarily constitute discrimination.[42] As Brennan CJ stated in Applicant A:
…the feared persecution must be discriminatory….[It} must be “for reasons of” one of [the prescribed] categories. This qualification…excludes persecution which is no more than punishment of a non- discriminatory kind for contravention of a criminal law of general application. Such laws are not discriminatory and punishment that is non-discriminatory cannot stamp the contravener with the mark of “refugee”.[43]
[41] Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225 per McHugh J at 258 referring to Yang v Carroll (1994) 852 F Supp 460 at 467.
[42] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, at [20]
[43] Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225, at 233
The principle that, ordinarily, non-discriminatory application of generally applicable laws does not constitute persecution applies whether or not a particular law is oppressive or repugnant to the values of our society.[44] In Applicant A Dawson J agreed with the observations of the Full Federal Court in that case that:
Since a person must establish well-founded fear of persecution for certain specified reasons in order to be a refugee within the meaning of the Convention, it follows that not all persons at risk of persecution are refugees. And that must be so even if the persecution is harsh and totally repugnant to the fundamental values of our society and the international community. For example, a country might have laws of general application which punish severely, perhaps even with the death penalty, conduct which would not be criminal at all in Australia. The enforcement of such laws would doubtless be persecution, but without more it would not be persecution for one of the reasons stated in the Convention.[45]
[44] See eg, Zheng Jia Cai v MIMA (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, French J, 13 June 1997) at 16; Lama v MIMA (1999) 57 ALD 613 at [30], upheld on appeal in Lama v MIMA [1999] FCA 1620 (Branson, Sackville and Kiefel JJ, 19 November 1999); and Alamdar v MIMA [2001] FCA 1244 (Emmett J, 30 July 2001). See further discussion below under the heading ‘Value-laden laws’.
[45]Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225, at 245 citing with apparent approval MIEA v Respondent A and B (1995) 57 FCR 309 at 319. Note that the description of harsh punishment under a generally applicable law as ‘persecution’ is inconsistent with High Court authority which holds that persecution necessarily involves discrimination, as do the requirements of persecution in s.91R(1)(a) and (c).
Whether a law is properly characterised as a law of general application turns on identifying those members of the population to whom it applies.[46] In some circumstances, it may be necessary to look behind a law that is generally expressed, to establish whether the law itself is in truth discriminatory in its intent or whether it has a discriminatory impact on members of a group recognised by the Convention.
[46] See Weheliye v MIMA [2001] FCA 1222 (Goldberg J, 31 August 2001), at [50].
The High Court in Chen Shi Hai v MIMA confirmed that laws or policies which target, or only apply to, or impact adversely upon, a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application:
Laws or policies which target or apply only to a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application. Certainly, laws which target or impact adversely upon a particular class or group - for example, “black children”, as distinct from children generally - cannot properly be described in that way. … To say that, ordinarily, a law of general application is not discriminatory is not to deny that general laws, which are apparently non-discriminatory, may impact differently on different people and, thus, operate discriminatorily. Nor is it to overlook the possibility that selective enforcement of a law of general application may result in discrimination. As a general rule, however, a law of general application is not discriminatory.[47]
[47] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ at [19] to [21]. See also per Kirby J at [72] and Wang v MIMA (2000) 105 FCR 548 at [50]-[68] where Merkel J (Wilcox and Gray JJ agreeing) discussed what the High Court and courts in other jurisdictions have said about ‘laws of general application’. Referring to Chen, his Honour at [65] reiterated that ‘[a] law that targets or applies to persons by reason of their political opinions, religion, race or membership of a pre-existing group, is not properly described as a law of general application’. Thus, laws regulating the practice of religion, requiring that they be practised or observed in a particular way or targeting or applying only to persons practicing religion, are not laws of ‘general application’. Nevertheless, consideration may still need to be given as to whether such a law has a legitimate object (see below). Although a law that is general in its terms may impact adversely upon a particular group, this of itself, will not necessarily mean it is not a law of general application, see comments in SZDNE v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 717 (Raphael FM, 14 October 2004) at [10]. The Court described the Nepalese law against bovicide as ‘truly a law of general application. It may have a different effect on different people because persons such as the applicant have no religious views concerning cows, but the law is the same for him as it is for the highest caste of Brahmin who may reside in Nepal’.
In this case, the Tribunal has considered the country information as set out above and notes that discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited under Egyptian law, however there are reports (referred to earlier) that confirm that Coptic Christians continue to face official and societal discrimination and that this has been prevalent for decades. The US Department of State’s International Religious Freedom report notes that although Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion; in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[48] In October 2011, while the Supreme Council of the Armed forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds[49] and added Article 161(ii), defining discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief’,[50] and provides for fines or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination this amendment however does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[51] Further there have been no indications according the United States Department of State that during 2013 that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.[52] In 2014 DFAT has also reported that while ‘anti‑discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement’.[53]
[48] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[49] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[50] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013
[51] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[52] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[53] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
Although the 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an anti‑discrimination clause and Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief,[54] country information indicates that it still remains to be seen whether there will be substantive legal and policy towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life’.[55] The European Parliament also notes that taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response which are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt; it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.[56]
[54] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92048
[55] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January 2014 CX317623
[56] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights - Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.6 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
The Tribunal notes that DFAT has assessed community prejudice against Copts to be pervasive and the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio‑economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low‑level and infrequent’ in middle class urban areas but ‘higher’ in poor urban and rural areas.[57] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Muslims across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[58] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims’ and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam.’[59] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination.’[60] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[61]
[57] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[58] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[59] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.11 CIS27158
[60] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June, p.7 OG180885B8
[61] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094
As noted earlier reports published by the United States Department of State,[62] the Carnegie Endowment,[63] Open Democracy[64] and Ahram Online[65] between 2015 and 2013 all refer to Copts facing official discrimination in Egypt within the public sector including government, universities, security forced and the judiciary. Although DFAT has provided a different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination[66] and while DFAT reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[67]
[62] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, pp. 13-15 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[63] Brownlee, J 2013, Violence Against Copts in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406
[64] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714
[65] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714 Ahram Online is a state-owned English-language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic-language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About AhramOnline Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring 2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Center – Accessed 23 May 2013; Ezzat, D 2013, ‘Egyptian Christians struggle to overcome minority status’, Ahram Online, 27 September Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469
[66] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[67] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
The country information indicates that while Egypt has anti-discrimination laws, the information confirms that these are often not enforced when it relates to Coptic Christians. Therefore the Tribunal accepts that as a Coptic Christian and as an Evangelical Baptist Christian the applicant has faced discrimination in a manner in which she has been singled out and abused for attempting to attend her places of worship while in Egypt. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s claim that her missionary work in [Country 2] in 2007 till February 2008, in [Country 3] in September 2010 till December 2010 and again in [Country 3] in January 2012 till February 2012 made her an object of attention by ultranationalist and religious fanatics in her area and made her life and that of other family members difficult to carry on without fearing for her safety and wellbeing. In particular, the applicant recalled to the Tribunal two incidents which occurred in 2011 (when walking near a Mosque with her aunt when rocks were thrown at her) and in 2013 (when unknown persons attempted to kidnap her), both incidents were reported to the local police. Indeed, the manner in which the police investigations were conducted (without any result) as presented to the Tribunal by the evidence of the applicant suggested that she had very little chance of being accorded even minimal state protection her situation and this was largely due to an innate discrimination within the law enforcement sectors of the Egyptian state.

The Tribunal also considered that having lost her security in her area of residence the applicant had no other recourse open to her but to consider fleeing her homeland and seeking safer refuge in more stable countries in the West – such as Australia, where the applicant had family members living. Moreover, the political situation in Egypt at the time of the applicant’s exist was deteriorating as a result of extremists were seeking political office and communal violence was rife in most population centres. It was only a matter of time when the applicant would be located by Islamic religious fanatics and assaulted or even killed. The Tribunal accepts the claim that the applicant was a devout Coptic Christian and later an Evangelical Baptist involved in their Church’s activities and this created a very real risk of persecution wherever she chose to live within Egypt because she desired to practice the faith freely and openly and that it had become known in certain circles of the society she had a daily interaction with that she opposed and worked in introducing others in Egypt and in other countries to Christian faith. In other words, the Tribunal considers her fears and concerns as substantial and legitimate. The Tribunal also notes that since April 2017, despite the declaration of a state of emergency by the Egyptian government sectarian violence has been on the increase and Coptic Orthodox Christians have suffered horrendous casualties and deaths as a result of who they are and what they believe in regardless of the assurance and willingness of the Egyptian state to protect them against attacks by radical non-Christian elements and despite legal guarantees expressed in eloquent language in enactments of the Egyptian legislature and in the Egyptian Constitution. The Tribunal has noted recent developments regarding an increase in sectarian violence and the targeting of Coptic Christians and other religious minorities and accepts that the applicant had been targeted in the past by radical religious elements because she was a Coptic Christian and due to her later work, as an Evangelical Baptist missionary who actively discussed and promoted her beliefs to others and was heavily involved in her religious group’s activities.
The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant had attempted to seek protection from the Egyptian authorities because of the attacks she and other members of her family had suffered but had very little protection provided to her. Further, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was forced to flee in order to escape any reprisals from religiously radical groups and that sanctuary and safety at that time could only be found in a foreign country and not within Egypt. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant’s that the applicant would face insurmountable difficulties if she was to return to Egypt and tried to continue with her life. The Tribunal notes that the Egyptian National Police are responsible for law enforcement nationwide and various sources including DFAT[68] indicate that police investigative skills remain poor and they suffer from shortfalls in training and equipment. The Tribunal acknowledges that the security situation has changed somewhat since 2013 and police in urban areas are more likely to provide more effective protection, DFAT nevertheless notes that the Egyptian police are a reflection of the Egyptian population and the increasingly conservative nature of the Egyptian society is mirrored in the police force particular in rural areas. In areas outside major cities, the police live in the community they police and are subject to local pressures to make choices that are congruent with dominant social mores. The United States Department of State noted in 2013 that there were credible reports that security forces failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities. The UK Home Office’s Country Information Guidance, Egypt: Christians noted in “MS (paragraph 151(1)) the UK Upper Tribunal found that there was inadequate state protection for Coptic Christians.[69] Inadequate protection which had been further made evident with repeated attacks on Coptic Christians this year in Egypt.
[68] United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Egypt, 27 February 2014; DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 28 January 2014
[69] UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 14 July 2014.
In light of all the evidence, including the country information, the Tribunal is of the view that while official and societal discrimination of themselves may not constitute serious harm, the cumulative effect of these in conjunction to the applicant’s religion and her past experiences of harm may be sufficiently serious as to constitute persecution.
The Tribunal is satisfied that cumulatively there is a real chance that the applicant is at risk of serious harm if she returns to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future and there is a real chance that persecution will occur. This is based on the applicant’s past experiences (prior to leaving Egypt for Australia) of discrimination and harm as Coptic Christians and as a Christian minority and that supports a conclusion that her fear is well-founded. The country reports and recent disturbing developments in Egypt indicate that while a state of emergency had up to now contained sectarian violence, these disturbing recent events, indicate to the Tribunal that sectarian violence still occurs and there has been no appreciable change in the treatment of Coptic Christians and other Christian minorities.
In this instance, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s cumulative circumstances are grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the treatment the applicants face on her return to Egypt amounts to serious harm on cumulative grounds. Therefore the Tribunal finds she satisfies s.91R (1) of the Act. The Tribunal is of the view that there is a real chance of persecution on the grounds of the applicant’s religion which includes her past experiences of discrimination and persecution and her membership of a particular social group namely as Egyptian Coptic Christians and that of an Evangelical Baptist who has done missionary work in predominantly Moslem countries who has no safe place of residence because of her involvement in missionary work and has been targeted for harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and therefore the applicants satisfy the criterion for a refugee set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s.36 (2) (a) of the Migration Act.
Peter Vlahos
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
APPENDIX
Updated Country Information Egypt[70]
[70] DFAT Country Information Report, Egypt, 17 June 2019
RELIGION
3.2         No official statistics exist in relation to the breakdown of Egypt’s religious population. While        estimates vary, most observers agree that Sunni Muslims comprise approximately 90 per             cent of the population, Coptic Christians make up between eight and ten per cent, and the            remainder consists of small numbers of other religious minorities, including Shi’a Muslims,               Sufi Muslims (officially considered Sunni) non- Coptic Christians, Baha’i, and Jews. The                government officially recognises three religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
Personal Status Laws
3.3         Religion is central to identity in Egypt. Egypt’s constitution states that Islam is the state religion, and the principles of sharia are the primary source of legislation. Article 64 of the              constitution states that ‘freedom of belief is absolute’. Religious institutions of the three       recognised religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) are responsible for personal status issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. Muslim personal status laws derived from      sharia are reflected in legislation. Family Courts apply this legislation to Muslim couples;               Muslims married to Christians, and married couples who belong to different Christian       denominations (see ‘Christians’). For Christians and Jews, the religious authorities      themselves adopt personal status rules, based on relevant religious doctrine. These rules are              considered equivalent to administrative decisions, and are subject to review in Egyptian              courts. The Personal Status Laws are currently undergoing a review process, but it is unclear                whether this will result in any significant change from the status quo.
3.4         Recent court rulings have allowed Egyptians belonging to unrecognised religions, such as              Baha’i, or unrecognised Christian sects (see Christians) such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, to have            a dash ( - ) recorded against the religion field in their identity documents. Members of these groups, however, may still face difficulties in relation to personal status issues due to the        lack of a civil alternative.
3.5         Egypt is a socially conservative country, and very few couples live together outside of      marriage in both urban and rural areas. The state administers marriages between Muslims in         accordance with Muslim personal status laws. Christians and Jews must seek marriage under           their respective religious institutions before obtaining a marriage contract from the state. All    marriages must be registered with the Ministry of Justice, which issues official marriage             certificates. According to sharia (as interpreted by Egyptian courts), a Muslim man can marry      a non-Muslim woman without her having to convert to Islam. A Muslim woman,    however, can only marry a non-Muslim man if he converts to Islam. Some Christian         denominations will reportedly marry Christians from different denominations without requiring one party to convert, but most, including the Coptic Orthodox Church, will                generally only marry couples from the same denomination.
3.6         There is no civil marriage in Egypt, and all religious authorities are strongly opposed to the           concept. Civil marriages of Egyptians abroad are recognised in Egypt only when they comply     with Egyptian personal status laws. For example, if a Muslim woman married a Christian       man in a civil marriage in Australia, it would not be recognised in Egypt. Likewise, Egypt              would not recognise a same-sex marriage.
Blasphemy/Defamation of Religion
3.12      Article 98(f) of the Egyptian Criminal Code provides for prison sentences of up to five years          and/or fines of up to EGP1000 ($AU145) for ‘exploiting and using religion in advocating and    propagating extremist thoughts with the aim of instigating sedition and division or      disdaining and contemplating any of the heavenly religions, or prejudicing national unity or       social peace’. Articles 160 and 161 proscribe various acts connected with religion, including             disturbing religious ceremonies, violating the sanctity of religious buildings or cemeteries,                printing adulterated versions of holy books, or imitating religious ceremonies for the       purpose of ridicule.
3.13      Courts of general jurisdiction (see ‘Judiciary’) hear defamation of religion cases. While the                Misdemeanour Courts hear most cases, the Criminal Courts may have jurisdiction if the charge is serious enough to involve a potential term of imprisonment. It is common for cases        to last over a year, and for proceedings to be postponed repeatedly. The Public Prosecution              Office places charges, which may occur after a lawsuit is filed, a private citizen files a     complaint, or the state itself files a case. A conviction under Article 98(f) can result in a           prison sentence of up to five years, and/or a fine.
3.14       Before the 2011 Revolution, defamation of religion cases were rare. The number and      frequency of charges rose considerably under the Morsi government, and this trend has           continued under Sisi. A January 2015 decree permitted the government to ban any foreign     publications deemed offensive to religion, and Article 98(f) has been used against an                increasingly wide range of groups across the country, including atheists, Christians (including                converts from Islam), and artists. The increased use of social media has reportedly been a             contributing factor in the rise of such cases: more people have had visibility of potentially       controversial material, and so the number of complaints has risen accordingly.
3.15      According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), there were 15      known ongoing cases and investigations under Article 98(f) in 2017, an increase from 2016.        Many of the cases involved expression on social media. The majority of charges filed have     been against Sunnis, including a cleric who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in             February 2017 for questioning various interpretations of Koranic texts on Facebook. The            majority of those sentenced to prison terms, however, have reportedly been non-Muslims.
3.16      DFAT understands that those accused of blasphemy rarely have an adequate defence counsel. Penalties include fines and/or imprisonment ranging from six months to five        years. In some cases, families have reportedly had to leave their homes due to threats        received because of defamation of religion cases.
Construction and Restoration of Churches
3.17      Church building is one of the most sensitive communal issues in Egypt. It has traditionally             been very difficult to build a new church in Egypt, as local authorities have imposed              convoluted processes to request permission and then ultimately refused the building permit.        In contrast, the law does not stipulate any government role in reviewing the number or size              of mosques, and no approval is required for mosque renovation. DFAT understands that         there are approximately 2,800 registered churches throughout Egypt, compared to nearly        110,000 mosques.
3.18      In August 2016, the parliament passed law 80/2016 required by Article 235 of the            constitution to allow Christians to build and renovate churches. The law requires the size of    a church to be ‘commensurate with’ the number of Christians in the area. Because there are        no official statistics in relation to the size of religious communities, determining the size of      local Christian communities is difficult and most likely arbitrary. The power to approve              requests is exercised by local governors, who must respond to a request to build or renovate      a church within 120 days. Refusals must include a written justification. There are no appeal             mechanisms.
3.19      Local contacts have reported that the 2016 law was welcome, but that implementation at            the local level had been problematic in some areas. These contacts reported that the Coptic      Church had presented requests for over 2,500 existing unlicensed churches and affiliated     buildings following the passing of the law, but (as of October 2018) authorities had only          approved around 200 applications. Local sources report that authorities had refused to grant               permits in sensitive areas (including the Upper Egypt cities of Minya, Luxor, and Esna) due to                strong opposition from local Muslims, and had closed up to 12 churches in these cities in               defiance of the new law. In less sensitive areas, however, authorities had granted permits     for around 50 new churches to be built and had made large areas of previously uninhabited             land available. The Ministry of Housing also reportedly issued an order in January 2018          permitting Christians to practice their religious rites at unlicensed churches pending the     legislation of their status. Local media and some international religious publications have                reported that the government has recently approved the construction of up to 170 new churches. President Sisi inaugurated a new cathedral outside Cairo in January 2019 (the         largest cathedral in the Middle East).
3.20      The government has rebuilt a number of churches and other church-owned properties destroyed or damaged in mob violence in 2013. The Saints Peter and Paul Church in Cairo       was also repaired after a December 2016 suicide bombing that killed 29 people (see Security              Situation). The government has funded a church in al-Our village in Minya in honour of 20       Copts beheaded by an Islamic State-affiliated militant in Libya. In Alexandria, the main             synagogue is undergoing extensive renovations paid for by the Egyptian Government      (estimated USD $5 million) with a renovation team comprised of technical specialists.
Terrorist Attacks on Christians
3.21      In December 2016, a suicide bomber targeted a church service at a chapel adjoining St    Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, killing 29 and injuring 49. Following the previously mentioned       February 2017 attacks in el Arish, IS claimed responsibility for two major attacks against         Palm Sunday church services on 9 April 2017. The first attack occurred at a service in Tanta,      killing 27 people and injuring over 70. The second attack occurred at a cathedral in                Alexandria. At least 16 people were killed and 66 people were injured in the Alexandria attack: Pope Tawadros was saying mass at the cathedral at the time, but escaped unharmed. In May 2017 in Minya, a gunman opened fire on a bus and killed 29 people who refused to             renounce their faith. In November 2018, militants ambushed three buses carrying Christian              pilgrims to a remote desert monastery south of Cairo, killing seven and wounding 19. In      addition to these attacks, security services have reportedly thwarted a number of attempted                attacks.
Communal Violence
Most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise together with         little regard to each other’s religious identity. However, small-scale disputes such as neighbourhood disagreements can on occasion adopt religious overtones and escalate into       community-level violence, particularly in poorer and rural areas. Most communal incidents              in Egypt take the form of vandalism and destruction of property. The large-scale anti-           Christian violence that occurred in 2011 and 2013 notwithstanding (see Security Situation),          high-profile incidents in which people are killed or churches attacked are not a frequent          occurrence.
A general breakdown in law and order nationwide occurred in the years following the 2011          Revolution, peaking in the period leading up to and immediately following the July 2013        military intervention, and again in the aftermath of the August 2013 dispersals of pro-Morsi      protests in Cairo. On these occasions, Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters            attacked Christian targets across the country, including churches, schools, and private                property. A November 2014 government report into the anti-Christian violence found that           29 people had died in communal-related killings, 52 churches had been completely razed, another 12 damaged, and numerous Christian-owned properties destroyed. Most, but not      all, of the incidents were marked by a slow police response, which may have been in part the              result of police and security personnel being otherwise engaged in protecting government      institutions. Large-scale anti-Christian violence ended with the declaration of a nationwide           state of emergency and curfew in August 2013, combined with a security crackdown on            protest activity by Brotherhood supporters. In December 2014, 40 perpetrators found         responsible for attacks on churches in Upper Egypt received prison terms ranging from one     to 15 years.
The majority of incidences of communal violence in recent years have taken place in the                provinces of Upper Egypt. The province of Minya – which has a sizeable (approximately 40      per cent) and relatively assertive Christian population, high concentration of Islamists, high            rate of poverty, and low rate of education – has been particularly notable in this regard.           According to the National Council of Human Rights, around ten incidents of communal          violence occur each month in Minya. In one particularly high profile incident in May 2016, an                elderly Christian woman was stripped and assaulted by a 300-strong mob angered by      rumours that her son was in a relationship with a divorced Muslim woman. In July 2016,           eight men involved in the incident were released and ordered to pay a fine.
Egyptian leaders are sensitive to the impact of communal violence. President Sisi has      repeatedly denounced attempts to create rifts among Egyptians and called for national        unity, most recently in relation to the displacement of Christians from northern Sinai. In            December 2018, the government announced it would form a higher committee tasked with    developing a general strategy to prevent and confront communal incidents. While                acknowledging Sisi’s personal engagement on the issue, Church officials have questioned the      commitment of some local officials and law enforcement to upholding the law equally for        Christians and Muslims.
DFAT assesses that while Egyptian authorities are generally committed to preventing communal violence, this commitment may vary between individuals and locations. Occasional violent incidents of communal violence are likely to continue to occur, especially in Upper Egypt and in Minya in particular. Most cases are likely to be the result    of small-scale localised disputes that take on a religious dimension.
Christians
3.31       Christianity was established in Egypt in the first century and is one of the oldest centres of            Christianity in the world. Although there are twelve officially recognised Christian          denominations in Egypt (four Orthodox, seven Catholic and one Protestant), the vast       majority of Christians in Egypt are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church. All those             belonging to recognised Christian denominations are identified as Christian on their national                ID cards. While Christians reside throughout the country, they are particularly concentrated        in Upper Egypt (the southern part of Egypt) and in major cities such as Cairo and Alexandria.          Suburbs in Cairo and other cities and some villages are sometimes regarded or described as               ‘Christian areas’, but few are exclusively Christian (or Muslim). Egyptian Christians are      politically and socio-economically diverse: they hold varied professions; range from the very              poor to the very rich; and have attained a range of education levels.
3.32      Christians generally dress similarly to Muslim Egyptians. In urban areas, however, Christian      women are more likely than Muslim women to leave their hair uncovered. Christian             women living in rural or conservative areas are more likely to cover their hair, but      generally do not wear the Islamic hijab. Christians tend to have identifiable names. Some            Christians tattoo small crosses on the inside of their wrists or between their thumb and       forefinger as a mark of their identity, often following visits to monasteries or holy sites. Not         all Christians have these tattoos and it is not a mandatory religious practice.
3.33      There are no legal barriers to prevent Christians from being visible in public life, and a     number of Christians have become prominent and influential in Egyptian politics and business. DFAT understands that the percentage of Christians in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population. However, Christians       tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles, and in the upper ranks of the                military and security services. It is very rare for Christians to be appointed as presidents,               deans or vice-deans in public universities. While anti-discriminatory laws and legal       protections exist, these are not always enforced fairly and Christians may experience some       discrimination, particularly in rural areas.
3.34      Most Christians viewed the post-2011 Revolution ascendency of the Muslim Brotherhood             with considerable apprehension. They regarded the Morsi government’s removal and the       restoration of general law and order as a cause for relief, and strongly supported the           ascendency of Sisi to the presidency. Many Christians and representatives of other minority     faiths report that while things could always improve, they generally consider themselves        better protected under President Sisi than previous Egyptian leaders. Christian religious authorities have consistently expressed appreciation for Sisi’s public messaging which has    called upon Egyptians to place national unity above religious differences, and for his      personal example: in 2015, Sisi became the first Egyptian head of state to attend Christmas            mass at the St. Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo and has attended every year since. Sisi has actively engaged with the Christian community, declaring days of national mourning or calling      personally on Pope Tawadros to express his condolences following terrorist attacks against      Christians (see Security Situation). Local sources report that Christians generally remain      strong supporters of Sisi, although (like other Egyptians) their initial enthusiasm has waned      due to the lack of economic improvement and ongoing social difficulties in Egypt.
3.35      Minority Rights Group International estimates that there are between 1000 and 1500      Jehovah’s Witnesses living in Egypt. Although the denomination is not officially recognised,     authorities permit its members to meet privately in gatherings of fewer than 30 people).              Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned from importing religious literature such as Watchtower    publications, which are a key part of religious instruction and practice for Witnesses.
3.36      DFAT assesses that Christians face a moderate risk of discrimination that is more likely to          be societal than official in nature, and is likely to vary considerably according to     geographic location. Christians, particularly in rural areas, may face difficulty in obtaining    justice through legal means (see Judiciary). Despite the lack of any official policy of               discrimination, Christians remain less likely than Muslims to be able to achieve senior                positions in institutions such as the civil service, military and security services, and        universities.
Muslim Brotherhood
3.52      The Muslim Brotherhood (‘the Brotherhood’) is an Islamist religious, political and social movement founded in 1928. The Brotherhood has traditionally represented the primary        political opposition to Egypt’s military rulers, despite being prevented for the most part from participating in formal politics and being subjected to intermittent (and often violent)          crackdowns. Although the Brotherhood did not play a significant role in the 2011 revolution,                it took a more assertive role afterwards. Since the July 2013 military intervention that      removed President Morsi from office (see Recent History), Egypt’s security apparatus and     courts have carried out a significant crackdown on the Brotherhood’s members and activities.
3.53 The Interim Cabinet declared the Brotherhood a ‘terrorist organisation’ under Article 86 of the Criminal Code in December 2013. Under Article 86, membership of a designated terrorist group may incur penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment. Article 86 also criminalises the distribution of materials, in writing or in speech, pertaining to a proscribed organisation or in service of its objectives. Tens of thousands of Brotherhood members have been arrested and detained since July 2013. Key members of the Brotherhood senior leadership have been in detention since the July 2013 military intervention, and much of the leadership has fragmented. According to his family, Morsi has been held in solitary confinement since being overthrown in 2013. He is currently serving a number of lengthy prison sentences, and has had at least one death sentence overturned.
3.54      Courts throughout the country have handed down a series of harsh sentences (including the       death penalty) in mass trials of those charged with participating in violent protests or riots        following the military takeover (see also Death Penalty). In September 2018, a court handed    down 75 death sentences and 47 life sentences against Brotherhood members, including the spiritual leader of the organisation, Mohamed Badi. Although the large-scale crackdown on      the Brotherhood has largely concluded, arrests of Brotherhood members continue: on 29          January 2019, authorities arrested 54 members of the group over charges of planning to               carry out hostile actions against state institutions on the anniversary of the 2011 Revolution.
3.55      DFAT understands that most, if not all, NGOs affiliated to the Brotherhood have either been        shut down, had their assets seized, and/or had their board replaced with government           appointees. In September 2018, an Egyptian judicial committee announced that it had          frozen the assets of 1,133 charities allegedly connected to the Brotherhood. The committee     additionally announced the freezing of the assets of some 118 companies, 104 schools, 69         hospitals, 33 websites and satellite channels, and 1,589 Brotherhood members.
3.56        In-country sources report that the government and state media consistently blame the Brotherhood (and terrorism) for all manner of domestic woes: the head of the National      Football Federation blamed the group for the national football side’s disappointing      performance at the 2018 World Cup in Russia, for example, while media suggested that the          Brotherhood was behind a train crash at Cairo’s main railway station in February 2019 that                killed 22 people (caused by a negligent conductor). While there is a degree of (unexpressed)       public cynicism about this practice, it has reportedly created a social environment whereby      any affiliation or connection with the Brotherhood – or any attempt to express political           dissent (see Political Opinion (Actual or imputed)) – is considered evidence of supporting          terrorism. This has resulted in a number of arbitrary arrests, prosecutions, and dismissals –               in one case, the son of a non-politically active Brotherhood member was reportedly                dismissed from his job in a regional hospital for ‘supporting terrorism’.
3.57      Analysts report that the Brotherhood has undoubtedly been weakened by the government’s      broadly applied crackdown, and the movement has been driven underground. Broad      popular support for the Brotherhood was reportedly damaged considerably by the      incompetence demonstrated by their year in power, reinforced by years of anti-Brotherhood           propaganda under Sisi. They note, however, that the Brotherhood retains a core support of          up to 20 per cent of the population, strengthened by feelings of victimisation after the    crackdown. As in the past, the restriction of all other avenues for political and social organisation (political parties, unions, universities, civil society, and media; see relevant             sections) has left Egypt’s tens of thousands of mosques as the only meeting place left, and       religion the only social outlet. Brotherhood satellite channels broadcasting from Turkey are          reportedly popular in Egypt, offering the only opposition voice accessible to the public.
3.58      DFAT assesses that Muslim Brotherhood leadership figures and members who continue to        pursue political activities actively either within or outside the party structure are highly             likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Ordinary inactive members, party supporters and those with family links to members are less likely to be personally targeted, but still face a risk of arrest, prosecution, or dismissal from state employment should their affiliations         become known to authorities. All persons with MB links are likely to be subjected to     surveillance and monitoring of their activities.
Violence against Women
3.81      Rape, sexual harassment, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence are all     strongly prevalent in Egypt. A 2017 survey by the Thomson Reuters Foundation found Cairo    the world’s most dangerous megacity for women.
3.82 Article 267 of the Criminal Code makes rape a crime punishable by death. The legal definitions for rape and sexual assault are weak, however, and rape within marriage is not a crime. Women’s rights activists estimate that tens of thousands of incidents of rape occur annually, very few of which result in conviction. Human rights observers report that authorities generally treat allegations of rape and sexual assault as a ‘social nuisance’ rather than a crime to be prosecuted, and rarely make serious attempts to prosecute those responsible for sex crimes.
3.83      Sexual harassment is a frequent occurrence for women across the socio-economic spectrum.      A 2013 UN Women study found 99.3 per cent of Egyptian women had experienced sexual    harassment, while 91.5 per cent reported experiencing unwanted physical contact. The study found that most sexually assaulted women would not report the crime to the police or               tell their families. Those who do make reports sometimes face retaliation from perpetrators           or even their own families, who may blame them for provoking the assault or for bringing                shame on the family. Sexual harassment was found to be particularly prevalent during mass        street celebrations such as religious feasts, or political demonstrations. State officials and          members of parliament have sometimes blamed victims of sexual violence because of their     “revealing clothing”.
3.84        Decree 50/2014 criminalised sexual harassment for the first time, providing for prison    sentences of up to five years, and parliament imposed higher penalties for sexual    harassment in December 2017, including fines of up to 10,000 Egyptian pounds (about $750 AUD). There have been some instances in which authorities have successfully prosecuted        perpetrators of sexual harassment: nine men received lengthy prison sentences in July 2014        for participating in mob sexual assaults, and a man received a five-year sentence in April      2015 for sexually harassing a woman on public transport in Cairo. However, such         prosecutions and sentences remain rare. Authorities have instead taken action against       individuals and groups who have spoken out on the issue. For example, in May 2018                authorities arrested an activist who had posted a video on Facebook which spoke about the         prevalence of sexual harassment and criticised the government’s failure to protect women.      In September, a court sentenced the activist to two years’ imprisonment for publishing false news, and fined her EGP10,000 (AUD795) for making public insults. The activist continues to               face charges in a separate case of belonging to a terrorist organisation. Human rights     observers report that several other women’s’ rights groups and activists also face criminal                charges in relation to their activism, with a number of activists subject to travel bans.
3.85        Domestic violence is prevalent and commonly accepted across religious communities and            socio- economic levels: a 2017 UN Women survey of gender attitudes found that 90 per cent    of Egyptian men and 71 per cent of women agreed with the statement that wives should      tolerate violence to keep the family together. In-country sources report that domestic      violence rates have risen in line with widespread frustration over economic austerity             measures (see Economic Overview). Socio-economic factors can make it difficult for a      woman to escape a violent relationship: attempting to do so in conservative or rural areas will usually result in communal and familial ostracism.
3.86      Very limited services are available for women seeking to escape domestic violence: only                eight government-run shelters operate nationwide (in Cairo, Giza, Qalyubia, Alexandria, Beni Sueif, Fayoum and Minya). These shelters provide social, family, and psychological counselling, along with referrals to other service providers. According to human rights          observers, the shelters focus primarily on reconciling women with their abusive husbands,          and tend to shelter women on a limited basis. The shelters are poorly resourced and       advertised, and they apply rules and procedures that greatly limit their accessibility and        utility to survivors of domestic violence. For example, unmarried women (including those           perceived not to be virgins), those seeking divorce, and those with children are all precluded             from accessing them. In-country sources report that attempts by civil society organisations      to set up private shelters have been prevented by court orders or other legal proceedings                against their activities.
3.87 There are no reliable statistics available regarding the incidence of killings and assaults motivated by ‘honour’ – these are not specifically addressed in the Criminal Code, and are considered as any other crime. Several articles of the Criminal Code in effect condone the committing of such crimes, including Article 17, which provides for reduced sentences in light of mitigating circumstances; Article 60, which does the same for offences committed in good faith of a sharia right; and Article 237, which provides for reduced sentences when a                husband surprises his wife in the act of adultery and kills her. Human rights observers report       that the practice of honour killings is more common in rural areas, with some incidences officially categorised as suicides or accidents.
3.88      Underage girls, particularly those from rural areas, are vulnerable to early or forced         marriage. The government’s official statistics agency reported in 2017 that 118,904 girls in        Egypt were under 18 when they married, and 18,127 were under the age of 16. The Ministry        of Health has reported that 500,000 are born every year to underage mothers. Some early marriages are temporary arrangements designed to mask child prostitution, known colloquially as ‘tourism’ or ‘summer’ marriages. These ‘marriages’ involve wealthy foreign            men (generally tourists from the Gulf States) purchasing young girls for the purpose of             sexual exploitation, with the transaction often facilitated by the girl’s family. The Ministry of Justice introduced measures in December 2015 to discourage such arrangements, but         refrained from eliminating the practice altogether.
3.89       DFAT assesses that the majority of Egyptian women, regardless or religion or socio-      economic status, face societal discrimination in that long-standing traditional values and        gender roles continue to restrict their participation in the community and the workforce.        DFAT assesses that the majority of Egyptian women face a high risk of gender-based           violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Activists who criticise                government failures in relation to gender violence are likely to face arrest and prosecution       in relation to their activism