1620675 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a couple and their child, all born in Egypt. The applicants claimed they feared persecution in Egypt due to their Coptic Orthodox Christian faith and the applicant's active role as a deacon in his church. The dispute centred on whether these claims met the criteria for a protection visa under Australian migration law. The decision was made by Christopher Smolicz, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a convention reason, specifically their religion, and whether they could avail themselves of complementary protection. This involved assessing the risk of harm from both state and non-state actors in Egypt, considering the country's legal framework, particularly its blasphemy laws, and the adequacy of state protection afforded to Coptic Christians. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "member of the same family unit" in relation to the second and third applicants.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, as an active deacon involved in pastoral work and community service within the Coptic Orthodox Church, was at risk of persecution in Egypt. It noted that blasphemy laws disproportionately affected Christians and that despite government assurances, sectarian violence against Copts was on the increase, with inadequate state protection. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence regarding his pastoral work and past encounters with authorities, giving him the benefit of the doubt in line with the UNHCR Handbook. It found that the fear of persecution was systematic, discriminatory, and amounted to serious harm, making it unreasonable for the applicants to relocate within Egypt. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the first applicant met the criteria under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, and the other applicants met the criteria under s.36(2)(b)(i) as members of the same family unit.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfied s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, and the other applicants satisfied s.36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first applicant.