1705130 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a Protection visa by a woman from Egypt. The applicant claimed to have faced persecution and harassment due to her religious activities as a Coptic Catholic Christian and a member of the Salesian movement, which involved assisting Sudanese refugees and poor families. She alleged that she and her family were threatened by Muslim fundamentalists and, at times, by police, due to her involvement in advising individuals considering or undergoing religious conversion. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically whether she was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe she would suffer significant harm if returned to Egypt.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of harassment, including incidents involving individuals converting to Islam, a family seeking to return to Christianity, and the alleged disappearance of a young woman named Ms. I. The applicant asserted that these activities led to threats of violence, including rape and death, against herself and her daughter, and that her husband was also threatened and injured. The Tribunal also had regard to independent country information regarding the situation of Christians in Egypt, including reports of discrimination, sectarian violence, and legal penalties for proselytising. The core legal issue was whether the applicant's claimed experiences constituted a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, taking into account the available country information and the credibility of her account.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were not substantiated by independent evidence and that she was not a witness of truth. While accepting that the applicant was an active member of the Salesian community and assisted vulnerable families, the Tribunal was not satisfied that her work brought her to the adverse attention of extremist groups or the police in a manner that would place her at risk upon return to Egypt. The Tribunal noted that country information did not support the applicant's claims of widespread forced conversions or threats against workers at the Salesian mission. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not face a real risk of significant harm if returned to Egypt.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the Migration Act 1958. As a result, the applicant was also unable to satisfy the family unit criteria under sections 36(2)(b) or (c).