1711051 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 1310

1711051 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1310 (16 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:1711051

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Egypt

MEMBER:Nicole Burns

DATE:16 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 16 March 2022 at 4:43pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – conversion to Christianity – non-practising Muslim – fear killing – threats from the applicant’s family – adopting Western behaviour – return visit to Egypt – separation from Australian citizen child – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 91R, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES
GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751
WZARI v MIMAC [2013] FCA 788

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

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 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa on 9 September 2014, and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 9 May 2017.

3. The applicant’s nationality is not in dispute.  He arrived in Australia holding an Egyptian passport and states he is an Egyptian national.  The Tribunal accepts he is an Egyptian national and finds that Egypt is his country of nationality for the purposes of assessing his protection claims. 

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 December 2021 to give evidence and present arguments about the issues in his case.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

9. 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

10. The applicant is [an age]-year-old man originally from Cairo, Egypt.  He came to Australia [in] December 2011 holding a provisional Partner visa sponsored by his then Australian citizen wife, [Ms A], whom he had met and married in Cairo earlier when she worked at an [agency] there.  Their relationship subsequently broke down (separating in around August 2012), and the applicant’s permanent Partner visa application was refused as a result.[1] 

    [1] On 25 February 2013 the applicant sought a review of that decision with the Tribunal (differently constituted) who affirmed the decision to refuse to grant him a Partner visa [in] August 2014.

11. At hearing the applicant advised that he has a daughter born on [date] in Australia who he shares custody with his ex-partner (an Australian citizen, [Ms B]).  He visited Egypt from [April] 2018 to [June] 2018 with [Ms B] and his daughter, before they separated, visiting his family members there.  His parents are deceased and his [number of siblings] live in Cairo.     

12. In summary the applicant claims to fear persecution from his family, the community and the authorities in Egypt as a Christian convert from (Sunni) Islam.

13. In a statement accompanying his Protection visa application (received by the Department on 10 September 2014) the applicant set out his background, and protection claims, summarised as follows:

    ·He is from Cairo, and has [number of] siblings.

    ·He comes from a devoted Muslim family.  They had Koran lessons when young, which he knew by heart.

    ·All of his female family members cover up and the males belong to the Muslim brotherhood or Muslim Salafist.

    ·During his childhood he was only exposed and dealt with Muslims with thoughts that Islam was the only true religion.  However, he always questioned himself and had different approaches, and started to meet Christian students at high school.

    ·He heard stories about Christians growing up and a few years before he came to Australia witnessed attacks on Christians in Egypt including burning of churches and he felt ashamed as a Muslim.

    ·He worked in [Occupation 1] in a [location] in Cairo with foreigners, which is where he met his ex-wife ([Ms A]) who was working as [an Occupation 2] at an [agency].

    ·His family (devoted Muslims) were against his relationship with [Ms A] because she was not a Muslim and they married against their wishes as she was not willing to convert.

    ·He and [Ms A] had major arguments after he moved to Australia including about whether or not she would accept Islam.

    ·In Australia the applicant became more moderate after working with people from different religious backgrounds, and joined a group of Christians who became friends.

    ·His wife thought he had become more attached with others from Coptic Egyptian backgrounds, spending more time with them than her.

    ·Around this time he had a back injury, and was depressed.  He started reading the Koran but started to question it after being exposed to a new life. 

    ·After his separation from his wife he got closer to his Christian friends and his church, who were supportive and positive.

    ·He was introduced to a new girlfriend, an Iranian Christian woman – [Ms C] – and through her got to know more about Christianity, and started attending an Iranian church in [Suburb 1] called [Church 1].

    ·The applicant’s family in Egypt became aware that his marriage had ended (via [Ms A]) and that Christianity had been a major issue. It is not accepted in Islam and he would be considered an infidel and could expect the death penalty.

    ·He met a friend at the gym – [Ms D] – who attended the same church as him in [Suburb 1] which is another reason why he became more attached to the church.

    ·His brother telephoned him and threatened him because he had dropped Islam and embraced Christianity.

    ·If he returns to Egypt his life would be at high risk as he could easily be identified as  a person who converted to Christianity from Islam and could be charged or receive the death penalty.  There is no place there he could stay and he could be easily targeted based on his identity card and national ID.

14. Material the applicant provided to the Department in support of the visa application included:

    • A copy of his baptism certificate showing he was baptised [in] April 2016, at [Church 1], [Suburb 1].
    • An undated letter from the [Church 1] team in which they congratulate the applicant on his baptism, and encourage him to join their [named] Group.

    ·A photograph of the applicant at his baptism. 

15. The delegate held several concerns about the applicant’s claims to have been attending church since late 2012 and ultimately did not accept he was a genuine convert to Christianity.  They accepted he had been baptised in April 2016 but formed the view that it was undertaken for the purposes of strengthening his protection claims.  The delegate refused to grant him a Protection visa on 9 May 2017. 

16. On review to the current Tribunal the applicant provided a link to a BBC news article dated 24 June 2013 about four Shia Muslims in Egypt being killed in a mob attack in a village near Cairo, accused by Sunni Muslims of trying to spread Shia beliefs.

17. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant gave evidence about his background, reasons for leaving Egypt, circumstances in Australia and extant fears if he has to return there.  He said he met his now ex-wife, [Ms A] in Cairo where she was working; they married there; he moved to Australia to be with her in December 2011; and their relationship broke down at the end of 2012.  She had met his family in Cairo beforehand and whilst they were civil to her, they knew she was not the right person for him.  His family did not like the fact that [Ms A] was not a Muslim; did not follow Islamic law; was an atheist; drank alcohol; ate pork; and was not a virgin when they married.  The applicant noted he was not very strict  when he lived in Egypt – only practising when his brother forced him to – and that he had never actually had a relationship with a Muslim woman.  He also drank and went out and did ‘things’ against Islamic law. 

18. Nonetheless the applicant said his father (since deceased) and two of his siblings attended their wedding in Cairo, whilst the remainder of his siblings refused. 

19. The applicant said after they married he and [Ms A] rented a house together for six to 10 months in Cairo where they had an ‘amazing’ life and did not see his family members that much.  He worked in a [location] selling [products].  His family did not want him to move to Australia, worried he would drink, eat pork and gamble.  In Australia the applicant worked in various jobs including in a [shop], [in a business] as a labourer and now in [another industry]. 

20. The applicant said sometime after he separated from [Ms A] he met a woman from Iran called [Ms C1][2] on the train who introduced him to church.  It was a ‘dark time’ for him as he had injured his back at work and there were issues around his insurance claim, with [Ms A] alleging he had the back injury earlier, in Egypt.  He met a priest at a church in [Suburb 1] who invited him for dinner and was very welcoming.  Thereafter he went to church every week, from the end of 2013 until the end of 2017: two years at the church in [Suburb 1] where he was baptised ([in] April 2016), then from around mid-2016 to a church in [Suburb 2].   He said there was no particular reason why he stopped going to church in 2017, but noted he used to read the Bible on his own, every day and is still friends with the church group on social media.  He felt his life went a different direction when his daughter was born, wanting to spend more time with her.

    [2] At hearing the applicant clarified that ‘[Ms C1]’ and ‘[Ms C]’ as listed in the application form are the same person.

21. The applicant said he decided to be baptised and become a Christian in large part because his best friend at the time, [Ms D] – who was Vietnamese, had converted from Buddhism to Christianity, and went to the same church as he did in [Suburb 1] – told him if he believed in Jesus and got baptised, it would change his life.  When asked what attracted him to Christianity in particular, the applicant said there were a lot of things, including the way they believe and because there was no pressure.  He added that the story of Jesus Christ in the Bible made more sense to him than the story of the Prophet Muhammad (he did not elaborate). 

22. The applicant also noted that he was not much of a follower or believer of Islam in the past.  Asked why he then began to follow Christianity in Australia, the applicant said at that time he was going through a bad time with his back injury and had no money.  He tried to reach out to God by reading the Koran and praying but did not find any connection. 

23. The applicant said he told [his] brother about his church attendance initially who then told the rest of his family in Egypt.  They thought he was crazy and that someone else must have been forcing him to do so.  He received phone calls and text messages from his family members in Egypt telling him to go back in the right direction. 

24. If he has to return to Egypt the applicant said he is concerned it will be the end of him if his conversion to Christianity becomes known.  He said most Christians are harassed or abused by Muslims there, and it is 100 times worse for Muslim converts.  When asked who he fears specifically the applicant replied ‘everyone’.   If he goes back – whether to Cairo or Alexandria or elsewhere – he will not know how his neighbours will treat him once they see his tattoos, lifestyle and realise his beliefs and values are different to theirs, particularly given his name indicates that he was born into a Muslim family.  He said most likely he would not be harmed by his siblings but he could be by others: he would never be sure when but knows it would happen.  Many Muslims in Egypt do not fear the law, because they believe Sharia law requires them to kill someone like him and that if they do not punish him, they are not true Muslims, he argued.

25. The applicant told the Tribunal when he visited Egypt in 2018 his brother yelled at him at the airport because he had tattoos, noting Muslims believe you are meant to die the way you are born, with no changes to your body.  Even more strict and aggressive Muslims may harm him. 

26. He said nowadays he does not talk that often with his family in Egypt, although he is very close to [specified] brother.

27. The applicant said he follows an Egyptian TV presenter called Islam/Eslam on YouTube who was born into a Muslim family but believes in Jesus and started to receive death threats, including on TV after he voiced his opinion about his beliefs.  The applicant said he is unsure what happened to him. 

    Findings in relation to the applicant’s religious conversion claims

28. The Tribunal accepts the applicant was born and raised a Sunni Muslim in Egypt, and used to practise there at times, although he was not particularly strict.  It accepts his siblings in Egypt remain adherents to Sunni Islam, although considers the applicant has exaggerated how devout they are due to internal inconsistencies in his evidence in some respects.  For example, on the one hand he claimed his family were devoted Muslims against his marriage to [Ms A] because she was not Muslim (among other things), yet he told the Tribunal his late father and two siblings attended their wedding.  He also stayed with family members on his visit back to Cairo in 2018 accompanied by his (non-Muslim) partner [Ms B] and their child, despite not being married.  Additionally, as noted in the delegate’s Decision Record (a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal on review) in his Partner visa application he said his family supported his marriage and were on good terms with his (then) wife.

29. In terms of the applicant’s claimed religious practice in Australia, the Tribunal accepts he was baptised in Australia in April 2016: a copy of his baptism certificate has been provided as well as photographs of him at the baptism ceremony and correspondence from fellow church congregants congratulating him afterward.  It accepts he regularly attended church from around the end of 2013 until the end of 2017 as claimed at hearing.  It accepts he may still be friends on social media with some Christian friends even after 2017 when he stopped going to church as indicated at hearing.  The Tribunal has several concerns about his motivation to convert to Christianity, however, for the following reasons.

30. Firstly, as indicated in the delegate’s Decision Record (a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal on review), the timing of the applicant’s alleged interest in Christianity casts doubt on his claimed motivations, taking place when it appears he had all but exhausted his options for remaining in Australia.  That is in around 2012/2013 he claims he met an Iranian Christian woman, [Ms C1] who encouraged him to attend church as he was at a low point with his marriage breakdown and back injury.  However, this was also when he had been refused a permanent Partner visa due to his relationship breakdown with [Ms A], and he applied for protection shortly after his review application of the Partner visa refusal decision with the then Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) was affirmed.[3]  

    [3] The applicant’s Partner visa application was refused on 25 February 2013 and the MRT affirmed that decision [in] August 2014.  The applicant applied for the Protection visa on 9 September 2014. 

31. Secondly, there are some inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence about who introduced him to Christianity and the circumstances at the time in some respects.  For example, as set out in the delegate’s Decision Record (a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal on review), at his MRT hearing on 7 August 2014 (with respect to the review of his Partner visa application refusal) the applicant said he had started attending church after he met an Egyptian Christian man but failed to mention [Ms C1] or that [Ms C1] had introduced him to church.  He also did not mention [Church 1] in [Suburb 1].  At the Tribunal hearing when asked about this omission at the MRT hearing the applicant said maybe the MRT did not ask him about it.  He said he had met an Egyptian Christian man at church.  However, his failure to mention anything about [Ms C1] or attending the [Church 1] at this time is a concern. 

32. Thirdly, the Tribunal found the applicant’s oral evidence about his motivation to convert to Christianity fairly general and vague.  For instance he said his friend, [Ms D], who was also a Christian convert, had told him his life would change once he got baptised but did not indicate specifically why he decided to convert.  When asked what attracted him to Christianity, he replied that it was a lot of things, including the way they believe and because there was no pressure, but did not give examples, apart from a general statement that when he read the Bible story of Jesus he thought it made more sense than the story of the Prophet Muhammad.  At hearing he explained that he was going through a bad time when he first became involved, having a back injury, not much money, and his marriage break down so he tried to reach out to his old religion – by reading the Koran and praying – but that did not work.  Whilst that may have been the case to some extent, in the Tribunal’s view he was unable to adequately explain what attracted him to Christianity, or what he liked about it in particular, or why he wanted to practise another religion when he claimed he was not particularly religious growing up in Egypt. 

1. Fourthly, the fact the applicant returned to Egypt and visited his family there in 2018 undermines his claims to have received threats from his family members including one of his brothers because he had converted to Christianity.  The applicant claims he returned to Egypt at that time with his then partner and daughter primarily because his sister was sick.  Even so, the fact that he spent time with his siblings there, including staying at some of their houses in Cairo for some of the time undermines his claims to have received threats from his family members in Egypt due to his conversion to Christianity. 

2. The combination of these concerns causes the Tribunal to doubt the applicant’s claimed  motivations for exploring and converting to Christianity in Australia, and to have been threatened by his brother (and/or other family members) in Egypt as a result.  It accepts the applicant has been baptised, attended church, and has held himself out to be a Christian in Australia.  However, for the reasons above the Tribunal has concerns about the applicant’s motivation to convert to Christianity and participate in religious activities in Australia.

3. For these reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant converted to Christianity and engaged in ongoing church related activities in Australia otherwise than for the sole purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.  Accordingly, as required by s 91R(3), as was relevant at the time, the Tribunal has disregarded this conduct in considering the applicant’s protection claims.

4. Whilst the Tribunal has accepted the applicant was baptised and attended church in Australia, it does not accept that he holds actual or imputed Christian beliefs or is a genuine Christian convert.  Given this finding it also does not accept his claims at hearing to have continued to read the Bible every day, after he stopped attending church in 2017.  Nor does the Tribunal accept that he has renounced Islam: he may not practise much, if at all, but notes that was the case when he lived in Egypt earlier and nothing occurred as a result.  On this basis the Tribunal finds he would not face a real chance of serious harm on return to Egypt as a non-practising Muslim.  Further it does not accept he would practise Christianity at all on return to Egypt.

5. It follows that the Tribunal finds there is no real chance that the applicant will be persecuted on return to Egypt, either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, by reason of his Christian religion, or as a religious convert, by his family, the community, the authorities, by religious extremists, or anyone else.  His fear of persecution on this basis is not well founded. 

6. The Tribunal notes in his statement provided to the Department in support of the Protection visa application the applicant stated, among other things, that all of his female family members cover up and the males belong to the Muslim Brotherhood or Muslim Salafist.  When asked about his brothers at hearing, the applicant clarified that his brothers are Muslims, but they do not belong to the Muslim Brotherhood and are not Salafist. 

7. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s siblings in Egypt are Muslims, that his sisters cover up, and that they may disapprove of his lifestyle, and life choices including having non-Muslim partners, drinking alcohol and his tattoos.  It accepts his oral evidence to the Tribunal that his brother scolded him when he visited Egypt in 2018 because of his tattoos.  It accepts some members of the broader community may also disapprove of his tattoos and lifestyle.  It accepts the applicant’s claims at hearing that during his visit to Cairo in 2018 he stayed at his late father’s house whilst [Ms B] and their daughter stayed at his brother’s house, 45 minutes’ drive away, because when they tried to stay together initially it was uncomfortable, given they were not married. 

8. However, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s siblings have threatened him in the past, and based on his own evidence at hearing accepts he has an ongoing relationship and communication with them, even if sporadic.  As noted he visited and stayed with them during a trip to Egypt in 2018.  The applicant’s lifestyle was evident to them when he lived in Egypt in the past and even if they were not particularly happy about some of his choices, there is no indication that they (or other community members such as neighbours) threatened or harmed him as a result.  Given these considerations the Tribunal finds remote the chance the applicant would be seriously harmed at the hands of his family members and/or community members on return to Egypt in the foreseeable future based on his lifestyle choices, including his visible tattoos, drinking alcohol and being a non practising Muslim.  His fears of persecution on these bases are not well founded. 

9. The Tribunal notes at hearing the applicant said his greatest concern if he has to return to Egypt is being separated from his Australian citizen daughter.  This is understandable, however, such separation does not constitute persecution for any Convention reason.

   Complementary protection

10. The Tribunal has also considered the application of s 36(2)(aa) to the applicant’s circumstances. On the basis of the applicant’s Egyptian passport (a copy of which is on the Departmental file), the Tribunal finds that Egypt would be the receiving country if the applicant were returned because he is a national of Egypt. 

11. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has found there is not a real chance the applicant will experience serious harm on the basis of his past or future lifestyle choices (including his tattoos, drinking alcohol and being a non-practising Muslim) from his family members and/or community members or anyone else if he returns to Egypt, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.  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 Refugee Convention definition.[4]  It follows that the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant would face significant harm if returned to Egypt for these reasons.

    [4] 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].

12. The applicant submits he will be at risk of significant harm if removed from Australia to Egypt from his family, the community, Muslim extremists and the authorities because of his  conversion from Islam to Christianity.  For the reasons set out above the Tribunal has accepted that the applicant did convert to Christianity in Australia, has attended church and has held himself out to be a Christian in Australia since around 2013 (to around 2017 in terms of church attendance).  However, given the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a genuine Christian convert and is not satisfied that he will practise Christianity on return to Egypt, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his brother has threatened him as a result, or that anyone would have any issues with the fact that he converted to Christianity in Australia, was involved in church activities, or may have told people about Christianity.  The Tribunal therefore finds he does not face a real risk of significant harm from his family, the community, Muslim extremists, the authorities or anyone else if removed from Australia to Egypt on this basis.

13. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is concerned about being separated from his daughter, an Australian citizen, if he has to return to Egypt, which is understandable.  However, whilst this may cause the applicant some hardship and emotional distress, the Tribunal does not consider that there is any intention in the act of the applicant’s separation from his daughter to cause any significant harm to the applicant.  The Tribunal also does not accept that the actual act of removal of the applicant from Australia falls within the scope of s 36(2)(aa). The judgments in SZRSN v MIAC and GLD18 v MHA confirm that separation from one’s family members in Australia or another country, where the claimed harm arises from the act of removal itself, will not meet the definitions of ‘significant harm’ in s 36(2A).[5]

    [5] SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FCA 751 at [47]–[49] (upholding the reasoning at first instance SZRSN v MIAC [2013] FMCA 78 at [61]–-[65]); GLD18 v MHA [2020] FCAFC 2 at [36]–[58]. Similarly, in WZARI v MIMAC [2013] FCA 788 at [31]–[32] the Court upheld the Tribunal finding that the applicant would not face ‘degrading treatment’ for the stress and pain of being separated from his family if he were returned to Fiji (special leave to appeal dismissed: WZARI v MIAC [2013] HCASL 201).

14. Having considered the applicant’s claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Egypt there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal therefore finds the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(aa).

    CONCLUSION

15. 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).

16. 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).

17. 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 any of the criteria in s 36(2).

    DECISION

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

    Nicole Burns
    Member