1706301 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 2245

1706301 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2245 (28 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1706301

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Egypt

MEMBER:Nicole Burns

DATE:28 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 28 May 2021 at 1:16pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – imputed political opinion – supporter of charity linked to Muslim Brotherhood – detained and questioned by police – vague and inconsistent evidence – low-level charity work and limited knowledge of politics – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36(2), 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth),

CASE

MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa on 12 November 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 7 March 2017.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 April 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

5. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is owed protection obligations as a refugee or under Australia’s complementary provisions. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

6. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

7. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

8. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and, generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

9. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

10. 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

    Nationality and background

11. The applicant is a [Age]-year-old married man from [Town], Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt.  He came to Australia as the holder of a Prospective marriage (Subclass 300) visa on 13 October 2009, engaged to an Australian citizen.  They married in Australia and subsequently divorced.  At hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal he has been married to his second wife, an Australian citizen of [Country 1] descent, for around five years, although they do not live together presently.  His brother lives in Australia whilst his mother and other siblings live in Egypt.

12. The applicant came to Australia as the holder of an Egyptian passport and states he is a national of Egypt.  The delegate did not indicate any concerns with his claimed identity or nationality.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a national of Egypt and had assessed his protection claims accordingly.

    Claims and evidence

13. The applicant claims to fear persecution at the hands of the Egyptian authorities on imputed (pro‑Muslim Brotherhood) political opinion grounds due to his past support to a charity linked to the Muslim Brotherhood called Al Amra in his hometown of [Town].

14. The applicant’s initial claims were set out in a statutory declaration dated 28 October 2014 provided in support of the visa application.  In it he states, among other things, that the Muslim Brotherhood were active in his neighbourhood led by two local leaders: [Mr A] and [Mr B].  He claimed to have been an active member and ideological sympathiser to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and their youth leader in the [Town] region where he helped organise fundraisers and rallies.  At interview with the delegate on 31 January 2017[1] he clarified that he was never a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and his involvement was confined to charity work with the Al Amal Association.

    [1] As set out in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal on review.

15. Material provided in support of the visa application included:

    ·A statutory declaration from the applicant’s brother in Australia ([Mr C]) dated 23 February 2017.  In it he states, among other things, that the applicant faced physical, verbal and emotional abuse because he helped care for the poor in Egypt as a volunteer for Al Amal, which was founded by MPs for the Muslim Brotherhood – ‘[Mr A]’ and ‘[Mr B]’  who had been members of parliament for their state for many years.  He states that for some reason the police believed the applicant was involved in more than just charity work and he was imprisoned and released with the help of their uncle.  He also states that the police who arrested the applicant still work in [Town].

    ·A copy of a translated certificate of appreciation for charity work signed by [Mr A], [Official], Al Amal charity.  It is undated (translated on 9/2/17).

    ·A copy of a translated affidavit from [Mr D], who was the applicant’s neighbour in Egypt.  In it he confirms that the applicant faced many troubles with the Egyptian police (State Security Investigation) who arrested and detained him because he was helping the Muslim Brotherhood group in charity.  They also hurt and tortured him before he was released after investigations proved he was helping in charity work only.  The affidavit is undated (translated on 5/2/17). 

    ·A copy of an affidavit from the applicant’s brother in Egypt ([Mr E]) who states that his brother worked in charity work, helping the Muslim Brotherhood; he was arrested by police, hurt, tortured, then released after investigations proved he was helping in charity work only.  The affidavit is undated (translated on 1/2/17). 

    ·Several articles and photographs of [Mr A] and [Mr B].

    ·A copy of a letter from the secretary of [Organisation] in [Suburb] (Victoria, Australia) dated 10 February 2017 attesting to the applicant’s character.

16. In a written submission[2] provided to the Department, the representative argued that the applicant needs protection based on his role as a youth leader for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and that he was targeted there because he opposes the government and expressly supports the Muslim Brotherhood.  The representative refers to country information about the treatment of Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters in Egypt.

    [2] Dated 22 February 2017.

17. The delegate accepted the applicant was involved with the Al Amal Association and faced some interest from the authorities as a result including being questioned, detained and mistreated in around 2001/2002 for two days.  However, given his support was limited, he stopped supporting them around a year before he came to Australia and indicated he did not wish to support them after being released from detention, and in the passage of time, the delegate found he did not face a real chance of serious harm on return to Egypt as a result.

18. During the review stage, the applicant submitted to the Tribunal a statement dated 7 April 2021 in which he reiterates his claims and provides an update about his circumstances and extant fears about returning to Egypt.  In it he claims to fear persecution on imputed political opinion grounds, as a Muslim Brotherhood supporter, from the authorities in the form of harm and/or unlawful detention.  He states that following the military coup by General al‑Sisi on 3 July 2013 which overthrew President Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood, the country has become a police state. He adds that there has been a mass crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathisers; the group was outlawed again in 2014; and their leaders have been jailed.  He was influenced by the political views of local leaders [Mr B], who is now in prison, and [Mr A], who is in exile in [Country 2].

19. The representative provided a written submission (undated) to the Tribunal reiterating the applicant’s background, claims and future fears.  Reference is made to country information to support the representative’s contention that the applicant’s fears are well-founded.

20. At hearing, the applicant gave oral evidence about his background, reasons for leaving Egypt and fears about returning there now.  He said before he left Egypt to come to Australia in 2009 – sponsored by his then fiancé – he was living in [Town], Governorate of Qalyubia, with his parents and [a number of his] brothers.  After leaving school midway through secondary school, he undertook various jobs in Egypt, including [Job 1] and as a [Job 2] for a while.

21. The applicant told the Tribunal he supported an organisation called Al Amal in Egypt from around 2003 (when it was first established) helping to pack and distribute essential food and medical items to the poor and needy in his local area and surrounding areas.  Al Amal had been founded by Muslim Brotherhood members as a charity.  He became involved when asked by his former primary school teacher, [Mr F], who approached him at the mosque one day and asked him to help out.  When he taught the applicant, [Mr F] had given him (and other students) some Islamic writings.  Later, along with another local Muslim Brotherhood leader, [Mr A], [Mr F] supported [Mr B]’s parliamentary election campaign.

22. The applicant said he thought he was only assisting the poor through his support to the Al Amal Association.  However, sometime in 2004, when [Mr A] had organised [Mr B] and others to attend his home, police – who had purportedly been monitoring his visits to Al Amal – came to his home, took him to an unknown location and questioned him about his involvement with the organisation.  He was taken to a police station, where he was ‘tortured’ (pointing to scars on his [body part] at hearing) then released. He could not recall how long he was detained for and there were no conditions to his release and no further follow‑up.  He then came to Australia to get away from the ‘whole thing’.

23. The applicant said after he was detained by police, he was frightened and did not attend [Mr F]’s place.  He continued to help pack food items for the needy through Al Amra, but not consistently.  When the Tribunal noted his claim in his written statement that he continued to fundraise and was the leader of a youth movement in [Town], the applicant said he did distribute some pamphlets during this period.  When asked what was meant by him being a leader of a youth movement, the applicant clarified that he was not a leader but noted various youth had witnessed him continue to distribute pamphlets after being detained then released.

24. The applicant said he has learnt (via the internet) that [Mr B] is currently in prison and [Mr A] fled to [Country 2] then Europe where he claimed asylum.  [Mr F] is also in prison, although the applicant did not know any details, such as how long [Mr F] will be in prison.

25. The applicant said since he left Egypt, the police have enquired about his whereabouts with his mother and brothers who remain in [Town], once or three times.  Additionally after he was questioned whilst detained, they appointed ‘secret informants’ to gather information about him.  When asked why the authorities did not enquire about him in the period after being detained and before he left Egypt (that is, from around 2004 to 2009), the applicant said because it was only after he came to Australia when anyone associated with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood faced such enquiries.

26. The applicant said he is afraid of the authorities if he has to return to Egypt because of his support to the Al Amal Association in the past, despite the passage of time, noting he is a person of interest.  He added that the association had a list of names of those attending which might contain his name.  Further, he has heard (via the internet) that the current president’s (al-Sisi’s) son, who works in government, continues to seek revenge on anyone who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Findings about the applicant’s past experiences, profile and future risks

27. The Tribunal accepts the applicant was born and grew up in the [Town] area, Qalyubia Governorate in Egypt, where he attended school and then worked in various jobs before coming to Australia in 2009.

28. The Tribunal has some concerns about the applicant’s claims to have supported a charity set up by the Muslim Brotherhood – Al Amal – in his area and being detained and questioned about his support on one occasion in the past, due to inconsistencies in his oral evidence to the Department and Tribunal about the timing of his involvement.  Specifically, he told the delegate[3] that he became involved with Al Amal after school in around 1997, when he was [Age], however at hearing, he said Al Amal only started around five years before he left Egypt (in 2009), which is around the time he became involved.  Further, he told the delegate he was taken for questioning by police (in relation to his support to Al Amal) in 2001/2002, however at hearing, he said this occurred in around 2004.  When these inconsistencies in dates (and context) were pointed out to the applicant at hearing, he said he struggles with his memory.

    [3] As set out in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal on review.

29. Although not without doubt, given the passage of time, the Tribunal is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this instance and accepts these inconsistencies in dates were due to difficulties in recalling them, not because the claims and related events were untrue.  The Tribunal notes the applicant has consistently claimed to have supported Al Amal (and been detained and questioned as a result).  He has also provided letters from [Mr A] confirming his involvement with the charity, an affidavit from his neighbour and his brother in Egypt, and a statutory declaration from his brother in Australia.  Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the applicant supported Al Amal, a local charity set up by the Muslim Brotherhood, in the past in Egypt.  It accepts in around 2002, he was detained for a short period by police and questioned about his support to Al Amra as claimed.  However, on his own evidence, he was released without conditions and there was no further follow-up.

30. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s role with Al Amal was limited to helping put together food parcels for the needy on occasion and handing out pamphlets to fundraise, as he described at hearing: overall, his involvement was sporadic and limited.  It notes he claimed to also support them financially in his statement provided to the Tribunal although he did not mention this at hearing.  The Tribunal does not accept he became a leader of Al Amal’s youth movement in [Town] as stated in his written statement to the Tribunal (and in his representative’s submission to the Department) given at hearing he said he was not a leader, but just someone who was known by other youth in [Town] to have continued to support Al Amal (by helping with the food parcels and distributing pamphlets) even after he was detained and questioned by the authorities.  The Tribunal accepts his support to the association continued after he was detained for two days but was even more sporadic and limited.  He did not indicate to the Tribunal how long he continued to support the organisation after being released from detention, however the Tribunal notes he told the delegate he stopped around a year before he came to Australia.

31. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim in his written statement provided that police in Egypt have asked his whereabouts numerous times via family members who remain there, specifically visiting his family’s home and his uncle’s house.  That is because his oral evidence at hearing about these matters was very vague.  For instance, he was unable to state when the last time enquiries were made and only speculated that it was (maybe) five months ago after being asked several times.

32. Therefore, whilst the Tribunal accepts the applicant provided some support to Al Amal in the past, it was sporadic and limited, decreased further after he was detained and questioned in around 2002, and he stopped altogether in around 2007/2008.  The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was a youth leader for Al Amal in his area, was a Muslim Brotherhood member, or was in any other way involved with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Tribunal accepts he was detained and questioned by police in around 2002 about his involvement with Al Amal and links to a local Muslim Brotherhood leader, [Mr A] (who was also arrested at this time) and beaten whilst detained as claimed.  It accepts the police may have been monitoring the association as claimed, and that the association may have had a list of people who supported them.  However, this took place over 18 years ago, and for the reasons above, the Tribunal does not accept there was any follow-up or that the authorities or anyone else have enquired about the applicant since, including after he left Egypt, via family members.  For these reasons, the Tribunal finds remote the chance the applicant would face serious harm from the authorities or anyone else on return to Egypt in the foreseeable future on imputed political opinion grounds because of his past support to the Al Amal organisation, including because he was questioned about that support (and his links to local Muslim Brotherhood leaders) in around 2002, even if the police who arrested the applicant (in around 2002) still work in [Town] as alleged by his brother in his statutory declaration provided to the Department (as at February 2017).

1. On return to Egypt, the applicant may get involved in some charity work of some description, as he has in the past.  If so, the Tribunal considers it is likely to be sporadic and limited given it was in the past, and it is not satisfied he would face a real chance of serious harm from the authorities in doing so. 

2. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant will be politically active if he returns to Egypt.  He has not claimed he has plans to do so, he was not a Muslim Brotherhood member or supporter or active sympathiser in the past (despite claiming so, erroneously, in his October 2014 statement and in the representative’s submissions to the Department) and has not been politically active in Australia. 

3. In his written statement provided to the Tribunal, the applicant said in Egypt he attended [a location] in his neighbourhood, where Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathisers would organise themselves; he lived close by.  The Tribunal accepts that was the case, but given the passage of time and its findings that the applicant was not of ongoing adverse interest to the authorities after he was released from detention in around 2002, it finds remote the chance that he would be seriously harmed on return because he used to attend a mosque where Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathisers would gather.

4. In his statement to the Tribunal, the applicant also stated that he has been influenced by the political views of local Muslim Brotherhood leaders, [Mr B] and [Mr A].  At hearing, he was asked what their views were and how these views influenced him.  In reply, the applicant said he has perceived what they have been doing to help the needy and poor, for example, through the Al Amal Association. His oral evidence was vague and general: he did not elaborate or provide examples of any other views.  The Tribunal is therefore of the view that the applicant has exaggerated their influence over him. 

5. Given these considerations, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant will support the Muslim Brotherhood on return or otherwise be politically active.  It follows that he will not face a real chance of serious harm from the authorities or anyone else due to his actual  (pro‑Muslim Brotherhood) political opinion, or imputed political opinion, including being prosecuted, harmed and/or face capital punishment as submitted by the representative at the Department level. 

6. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s former primary school teacher, [Mr F], used to show videos to his students (including the applicant) of police brutality against the Muslim Brotherhood as claimed, and that he supported the Muslim Brotherhood including by supporting local leaders [Mr B] and [Mr A].  The Tribunal accepts that [Mr F] and [Mr B] are now in prison in Egypt as claimed by the applicant, and that [Mr A] has fled Egypt (after being arrested around the same time as the applicant in around 2002).  At hearing, the applicant said he knew [Mr F] because he was his primary school teacher, but he had never actually met or had a relationship with [Mr B] or [Mr A].  Whilst the Tribunal accepts the applicant was questioned by the police in around 2002 about his relationship with [Mr A], among other things, this occurred over 18 years and there was no follow‑up.  The applicant remained living in Egypt for several years after being released from detention and before he left for Australia without the authorities showing any interest in him due to his links with [Mr A], [Mr B] or [Mr F].  The Tribunal does not accept for the reasons above that the police have asked his whereabouts via family members in Egypt since he left.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds remote the chance the applicant would face serious harm from the authorities due to his links to Muslim Brotherhood members and leaders, including [Mr A], [Mr B] or [Mr F], if he returns to Egypt in the foreseeable future.

7. For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm from the authorities or anyone else on return to Egypt on imputed or actual political opinion grounds due to his past support to the Al Amal Association, or if he supports a charity organisation again, or due to his associations with Muslim Brotherhood leaders, members and supporters in his local area, including [Mr B], [Mr A] and [Mr F].  His fear of persecution on these bases is not well-founded.

8. The Tribunal has also considered if the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Egypt as a returnee and failed asylum seeker.  At hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant DFAT’s most recent advice about treatment of returnees as follows:

   DFAT assesses that people who return to Egypt after several years’ absence will not face any adverse attention on their return due to their absence. Likewise, DFAT assesses that failed asylum seekers will not face adverse attention because of their failed application for asylum when they return to Egypt.

   Egypt accepts involuntary returnees. Egyptian officials generally pay little regard to failed asylum seekers upon their return to the country, although it is possible that some individuals will be questioned upon entry, or will have their entry delayed. Many thousands of Egyptians enter and leave the country every day. Egyptians who out‑stay their work or tourist visas in other countries are regularly returned to Egypt with no attention paid to them by authorities. DFAT is not aware of failed asylum seekers being reported by airport authorities to the Ministry of the Interior or any of the security services beyond the normal processes for returning Egyptian nationals.

   DFAT assesses that Egyptian embassies or other officials usually take note of political activities conducted by Egyptians abroad. However, only particularly high‑profile cases (i.e. those that gain media notoriety in Egypt) are generally of interest to Egyptian authorities. Lower profile political activists may be questioned on return to Egypt, but are unlikely to be detained or otherwise mistreated.[4]

   [4] DFAT Country Information Report, Egypt, 17 June 2019 at 5.38–5.40.

9. Given this advice from DFAT that the authorities in Egypt pay little regard to failed asylum seekers on their return, combined with the Tribunal’s findings that the applicant is not of any ongoing adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities, and the fact he was not politically active whilst abroad, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not face a well-founded fear of persecution from the authorities or anyone else as a returnee or failed asylum seeker.

   Other matters

10. In his written statement provided to the Tribunal, the applicant said he is stressed, traumatised and suffers from high blood pressure for which he takes medication[5] but is concerned he would not be able to afford his medication on return.  At hearing, the applicant said he currently takes medication to manage high blood pressure caused by stress.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant may be stressed and has high blood pressure and takes medication.  However, as high blood pressure is a common medical problem, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant would be able to access relevant medication to manage his health issues in Egypt.  The Tribunal is not satisfied on the limited evidence before it that the applicant’s health problems including stress and high blood pressure would result in persecution for any reason on return to Egypt.

    [5] He provided copies of his prescription and pathology results.

11. The Tribunal notes in their submission provided to the Department dated February 2017 that the representative refers to various supporting documents provided, including a document titled ‘Offprint from commercial registry’ dated 27 October 2004.  The representative states this is evidence that the applicant was forced to sell his [business] in [Town] to escape his situation.  The applicant does not mention having to sell a [business] in his written statements provided to the Department or Tribunal, or in his oral evidence to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal is willing to accept based on the document provided that the applicant may have owned a [business] at some stage in Egypt.  However, it remains unclear if he had to sell it or why, and on the limited evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied that this results in a well‑founded fear of persecution for any reason on return to Egypt.

    Conclusion – refugee grounds

12. Having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution on return to Egypt for any reason in the reasonably foreseeable future and that his fear of persecution is not well-founded.

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

    COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION

14. On the basis of the applicant’s claim to be a national of Egypt and earlier findings about his nationality with regard to his refugee assessment, the Tribunal finds that Egypt is the applicant’s receiving country for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).

15. As the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa), whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act.

16. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted there to be a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Egypt now or in the foreseeable future on imputed or actual (anti-government/pro-Muslim Brotherhood) political opinion grounds, or as a returnee/failed asylum seeker. In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugees Convention definition.[6] It follows that the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from the Egyptian authorities or anyone else for these reasons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt.

    [6] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297], Flick J at [342].

17. The Tribunal accepts the applicant takes medication to manage stress and high blood pressure.  However, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the limited evidence before it that any harm the applicant may suffer as a result of his stress and high blood pressure would be intentional, which is required to satisfy the definition of torture, inhuman treatment and degrading treatment in the Act.  Furthermore, as the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant would be able to access medication if required for his health problems including high blood pressure in Egypt, it is not satisfied he faces a real risk of the other forms of significant harm, being deprivation of life and the death penalty.

    CONCLUSION

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

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

20. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

21. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Nicole Burns
    Member