1618121 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a protection visa by an Egyptian national. The applicant claimed he faced persecution due to his Christian faith, citing threats of harm, kidnapping, forced conversion, and death from Muslim individuals and groups, including his brother-in-law. He also alleged workplace discrimination and that the police failed to protect him due to the perpetrators being Muslim. The applicant’s claims were based on events including the forced conversion of his cousin’s daughter and son, and his cousin’s wife, and threats from neighbours identified as Salafists from the Muslim Brotherhood.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H, or whether he faced a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection). The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility, considering inconsistencies in his evidence, his voluntary return to Egypt after a previous visit to Australia, the delay in his application, and his stated responsibilities as a carer for his sister. The Tribunal also had to consider the country information regarding the status of Christians in Egypt and whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Egypt.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for a protection visa under section 36(2). While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's claims of persecution based on religion, it ultimately affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. The reasoning behind this decision, though not fully detailed in the provided text, appears to have involved a lack of satisfaction regarding the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, potentially due to credibility issues, the passage of time since the alleged incidents, or the availability of protection in Egypt. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(b) or (c) as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.