1715247 (Refugee)

1715247 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4408 (9 September 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:1715247
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Egypt
MEMBER:Lilly Mojsin
DATE:9 September 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 9 September 2021 at 3.00pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – Quranist – fear of the Muslim Brotherhood – physical assault – family arranged divorce – applicant estranged from his family – return visits to Egypt – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 424, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 28 June 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa [PV] under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa on 4 March 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that there was not a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious or a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm, within a reasonably foreseeable future on his return to Egypt.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] December 2013, as the holder of a [Visitor] Visa, valid until 24 February 2014. The visa was granted on the basis of visiting his brother in Australia.
On 21 February 2014, the applicant lodged a [Skilled] visa application that was refused on 7 July 2014. The applicant sought review of that decision to this Tribunal, differently constituted, and the refusal was affirmed on 6 May 2016.
The applicant lodged a PV application on 4 May 2016, attaching a copy of the Department decision to his application for review.
The applicant is assisted by a registered migration agent who attended the Tribunal hearings.
The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for 7 April 2021, via Teams video. On the morning of the hearing the applicant provided a lengthy submission to the Tribunal. The Tribunal drew to the applicant advisor’s attention the President’s Directions that required that unless the Tribunal has allowed otherwise:
- all evidence, including witness statements or outlines of evidence; and
- any written submissions the applicant wanted the Tribunal to consider;
- must be lodged at least seven (7) days before the hearing.
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to 12 August 2021 via MS Teams video. A further hearing was held on 2 September 2021.
In making arrangements to hear the matter via MS Teams during COVID lockdown, the Tribunal had regard to the legislative objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by video.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments in the format which was utilised, in two Tribunal hearings. The applicant confirmed that he could hear and see the Tribunal Member. The Tribunal was able to interact with the applicant and his representative and all parties were able to maintain line of sight and appropriate communication throughout the proceedings.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
See annexure A
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
In his PV application, prepared with the assistance of his then registered migration agent, the applicant stated that he had [specified family members] and his mother living in Egypt. He claimed that to have been born into Sunni Islam and was forced to practice the Sunni faith in Egypt even though he did not agree with its teachings.
He claims that when he was in high school, he started to question teachings so that in Egypt he had disagreements with his family. His father expressed concerns to a Sheik who controlled his religious education and practice in a strict manner making him do a lot of homework. The Sheik used to threaten him by telling him that he will tell the police that he was an infidel.
The applicant claims that when he travelled to and lived in [Country 1] in 2005, he was able to practice his religion as he wanted. He lived in [Country 1] from 2005 until December 2013.
The applicant travelled back to Egypt from [Country 1] on 4 or 5 occasions, on one occasion he got married. He was not in Egypt often.
He claims that his new brother in-law became involved in a fundamentalist religious group (Muslim Brotherhood) and corrupted his wife with fundamentalist religious views. This caused problems in communication and acceptance between himself and his wife and eventually they separated.
The applicant’s daughter was born on [date].
After arriving in Australia, the applicant had problems with his Australian brother who practices Sunni Islam. The applicant initially thought that he (the applicant) may be an atheist but after conducting research and talking with people, he realised that what Sunni Islam teaches is not necessarily what is in the Quran. He is a Muslim who follows the Koran only.
The applicant claims that if he returns to Egypt, then he would be forced to practice Sunni Islam, he would be considered an infidel, he would loose the right to his daughter and his family inheritance, he would be persecuted and possibly killed. Sunni Islam is the only Islam accepted in Egypt.
At the Department interview, the delegate records that the applicant claimed
·he started to question his faith sometime around 1996 or 1997 but he formed the Koranist view (being a Muslim on the basis of the Koran only), in 2005, 2 weeks after he arrived in [Country 1].
·because of his religious views he had lost everything in Egypt. He said that he lost his wife, family and inheritance . The applicant also said that the only thing or person he thought about in Egypt was his mother.
·he would not alter his religious beliefs and if he returned to Egypt then he would not conceal his religious views, they would become known to the community and he would be harmed.
·he does not discuss religion with his brother in Australia. He said that he didn't share his religious thoughts with his brother because he did not want to lose the relationship he has with his brother. The applicant said that his brother has his religious ways and he (the applicant) had his own
In a submission to the Tribunal the applicant claimed that he faces deprivation of the basic human right of practicing his own religion from the Muslim Brotherhood gang in Egypt, 2 persons in Australia that threatened him about his religion and his own family is against him - due to his religion. Muslim Brotherhood Group cannot be controlled by the Egyptian forces in Egypt.
He was questioning if he was actually an Atheist because he was confused about his religion, after a long time of reading, thinking and talking to various friends, particularly one [named], he began to realize that his confusion and struggles came from the fact that what Sunni Islam teaches is not necessarily what is in the Quran. This made him focus and understand Allah through the Quran only and it made sense to him. He now practices his religion according to the Quran and he is not a Sunni Muslim. His brother, friends in Australia and his family in Egypt oppose this. The chance of being tracked down by the Muslim Brotherhood group is high as the Muslim Brotherhood is scattered throughout Egypt and have associates here in Sydney.
It was claimed that were the applicant to return to Egypt the applicant cannot practice his method of Religion in peace without being scolded and/or assaulted by the Muslim Brotherhood Group as well as his family. He has not been physically harassed, however he has received threats of physical harassment from the Muslim Brotherhood Group, of which he never reported - due to the fear that if he reported then the Muslim Brotherhood Group will be notified of the reporting. He will have services limited for him to lead a normal life.
It was also claimed that once he it is reported to the Police, about his religious beliefs, which is a very high chance as his former brother-in law is part of the Muslim Brotherhood Group, his capacity to earn a livelihood will be severely affected. He will be threatened by the Police. He will be turned to the Muslim Brotherhood Group. His religious beliefs are not accepted by the Egyptian Authorities or Community in Egypt. He cannot relocate to anywhere in Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood are scattered throughout the country.
The applicant attached:
·UNHCR - Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Law on Human Rights – Egypt
·Counter Extremism Project: Muslim Brotherhood.
·EgyptToday article "Muslim Brothe rhoo d' formed 13 Terrorist Groups in Egypt''
·Al Jazeera - ''Egypt kills suspected fighters a day after tourist bus bombing"
·Muslim Brotherhood Counter Terrorism Project
·Arrest warrant relating to brother
Tribunal hearing held on7 April 2021
At the Tribunal hearing the applicant said that he was born in [City 1] [[location]]. The applicant did not wish to change, delete or add to any of the information provided in his PVA.
The applicant was born into a Sunni Muslim family. His family comprise of [specified siblings in specified countries, including] 1 in Australia. He attended school in Egypt, finishing [grade] school in [year], he was [age]. He obtained a job as an [Occupation 1] working there [between specified years]. He went to [Country 1] in order to work outside Egypt as he started to build his opinion as to what is going on inside. In [Country 1] he worked in [an industry] and started as [a role] and became a supervisor. He worked for 5 companies. He stopped working in [Country 1] when he came to Australia. He works in [specified work]. He lives in [Suburb 1] since 2018. He lives with his wife and her children. He married an Australian citizen in Australia.
The applicant worked in [Country 1] for 9 years. He returned to Egypt 3 or 4 times, for 2 weeks the 1^st time, then his mother 4 months later she became ill so he returned and stayed for 1 month. That was in 2008 he went in March and August. He next returned to Egypt in 2009 when he married [in] July 2009, he was in Egypt for 4 -5 weeks. His wife went with him 5 weeks later. She returned in 3 months. He went in [year] when his child was being born, he returned for 3 months. He returned to Egypt in 2012 as his mother was ill and he went to see his daughter. He was there for 1 month [between specified dates].
The culture in Egypt is that if there is a problem between mother and father they convince the daughter that the father is dead. So he has no contact with his daughter or ex-wife. They live in the same city as his family. He does not contact his family regularly neither does his wife because when divorce occurs everyone goes their own way. He contacted his family mainly via his mother, but when she passed it was only his mother he was connected with as they do not approve of his belief. His mother died [in 2019]. He was in touch with his mother until her death. After her death the family contacted him to give him their condolences and after that there was no communication.
His religion is Quranic. He only follows the Quran. His current wife is a Sunni Muslim. Her children sometimes go to the mosque at [Suburb 1], his wife prays at home. They got married in Australia. One of the Sheikhs performed the marriage. The marriage was in a restaurant where the Sheikh performed the ceremony. Asked if it was in accordance with Muslim Sunni beliefs, he responded that the marriage was performed according to the Islamic religion. The main thing is the Islamic marriage, it has to be announced to everyone.
Asked how Quranists perform weddings he said that the marriage depends on the publicity it has to be announced, the families have to come. Asked if any different between Sunni Muslim and Quranist wedding, he said as long as you make marriage public then it is no difference. The Sheikh reads the verses.
Asked if he practices Quranic religion in Australia, he said that they take prayers from the Koran, when tell other people prays are not 5 times a day.
I asked what is difference between Quranist and a moderate Muslim. He then referred to prayers and how many times they pray. From the Koran it says pray part of the night and part of the day and he prays at dawn and at night, he prays as long as he wants.
Asked why he believes he is a Quranist and not simply a liberal Muslim, he said the Koran is a heavenly book revealed to Mohamad and written on different forms of 3 parts of the tree and skin of animals and then at end collected on all.
Asked if he meets with other Quranists in Australia, He said that you cannot find people here that are Quranic. You only find them on the net. Some people are scared. Rashid is the mufti here, but he does not mention that.
He met with a person called [two friends’ names] and they are convinced with this idea. Asked how many other people are aware he is a Quranist, he said that when he starts to discuss the matter of Koran with other persons they start to attack and talk to him about Sunna and as soon as he tells them they tell him he is an apostate and an infidel. You cannot discuss it with somebody. He last discussed it 4 or 5 months ago, when he had a discussion with someone and asked them why do you pray for the whole month of Ramadan.
He [follows] Mansour and Rashid and he follows their lectures and talks. He does this by the internet, he follows the videos since he started to follow their speeches and videos and tries to find out why they connected. When he was convinced with Quranist belief he did not know any of these people. He knows something that he was born a Muslim and he does the pray like his father and family.
Rashid is in Australia but he travels. He does not know the name of Rashid’s website he sees him on media. Mansour’s website is channel u tube and he lives in America. He comes on channels on utube. Asked when was last time he [accessed] Mansour’s Quranist internet site he said that he has lists of speeches and he follows him. It was last week but it was recorded.
I asked the applicant how he first became interested in Quranism he said that it was when he was in prep school, one his friends with whom he was playing soccer someone said he is an infidel and he started to search about the religion.
In Egypt there is only Sunni and Christian. In [Country 1] he found there were other Muslims. He publicly expressed his religion in [Country 1]. He used to pray in the mosque, a person behind him said this Saddath is weak. He started to ask the people if they believe the tradition of the Prophet, and the people told him not to make trouble. Other than having this discussion in 2008 after he returned from Egypt, it happened here and in Saudi Arabia when he went [in 2011]. When his brothers found he was so convinced about his belief his brothers said, “let us go to Hajj”. He saw things there that convinced him he was correct. They performed the Hajj and said “we are going to Medina”. He found a person with his mat wiping the wood of the Prophet and wiping the monument. He looked at him and the police said “do you have a wooden cupboard, go and wipe it”.
I put to the applicant that he has not explained how he publicly expressed his Quranist views. He said the people will know it was the reason for his divorce. His wife had a brother who is extremist and her brother said he cannot live with him. His brother knows he is following only Quranist belief. Also when he discussed the matter with his friends, in an open discussion with them.
Asked how he expressed his Quranic opinion in Australia, he said that in 2014 “we were sitting with different sheiks in a restaurant and he expressed his opinion”. They stopped him from talking any longer. As soon as he expressed his opinion, they attacked him verbally and said he was an infidel. Asked how many times in Egypt he publicly expressed his opinion, he said the first time was in prep school so that his father approached a teacher.
I put to the applicant that he has not expressed his opinion openly in Egypt. He responded that when he was young, he was scared from the priest. In 2008 when they divorced, then the people knew he does not follow their way of belief. He did not join any Quranist group in Egypt. He said that in Egypt, there is the Muslim Brotherhood and if anyone knows there is a different group they will kill them. He was travelling a lot. Mansour was a specialist in Sharia and Islamic belief, he fled Egypt and is not allowed to return.
I put to the applicant that he is a Liberal Muslim but has not been publicly identified in Egypt as a Quranist. He said that people are scared from expressing their opinion. When the mob ruled in 2012 it gets worse. You are scared to express your opinion.
I put that nothing happened to him when he lived in Egypt. He said there was verbal abuse and physical attacks. Put he did not advise Department he was physically attacked in Egypt. He said he told the Department he was attacked verbally and physically.
I asked how he would practise as a Quranist if he went back to Egypt. He said that he cannot return back to Egypt. They have informed his daughter he is dead because of his belief and they do not recognise him as sibling and he does not have accommodation in Egypt. His brother is in prison as Muslim Brotherhood and he is scared that they can put him in prison. If the government does not put him in prison the people will do that. He has a brother in Egypt who is scared to stay in his home and is scared government will harm him.
Put that there is a small Quranist community in Australia that engages primarily through the internet. Information about Quranism suggests that most followers engage in debate and discussion on the internet about matters such as the interpretation of the Quran. I put that he expresses his view privately, he said he is not allowed to express Quranist views publicly as it is prohibited. Even here in Australia he cannot say he is liberal Muslim as Quranic person believes in Qu’an not Sunna. He believes Quranist follows book of Qu’an.
I put to the applicant that he has a particular view of his religion but he is not a member of the Quranist community or group in Egypt that publicly express their views.
Further, he has never criticised the government he agreed but said, if they find out he is a Quranist they will harm him. He said that those people who express their opinion as Quranists are in jail and the normal people can say he is Quranist.
I put to the applicant that while many people are being killed in the unrest in Egypt, there is no information to suggest that Quranists are being killed; or that people who are in any way similar to the applicant are being targeted. He said that the situation is that the government does not announce they have people in prison as it is against the democracy and they do not mention the reason for it but contemp for religion.
Asked the applicant why he waited for 3 years to apply for a PV visa . He said that he arrived in December 2013 and applied on 4 May 2016 and I noted that this delay could indicate that the applicant did not fear persecution as he claimed.
Asked when he formed the view he could not return to Egypt he said that after he separated from his wife in 2012. He did not apply for a PV until 2016 because when he came to Australia his passport had a valid visa to [Country 1] and it was valid. He could return. He said you cannot apply for PV if one had a valid visa so he applied for a working visa. I put he applied for PV as it was the only visa he could apply for at that time. He said that waited 3 years as he had a valid visa for [Country 1].

Asked when he last looked at the internet site of Mansour Quranists, he said a week or ago. I put that the internet site indicates it is closed down. He said that it is a live interview.
He said his problem is with all the Sunni people and they are not going to accept him.
Tribunal hearing on 2 September 2021
I asked the applicant about the documents sent to the Tribunal about his brother. He explained that he obtained them in 2 months ago, he got them from Egypt, he talked to his nephew and he sent them to him. it is his brother’s wife she had written information to the Solicitor General. He lives in Alexandria and has been there for a long time, since about 2010. The last thing they knew is that he was arrested and detained. He is a missing person to this day. Up until now no one knows about where he is. Asked the relevance of the information he said that his brother is a member of Muslim Brotherhood so anyone will be detained even if they do not belong. Asked how he knows his brother is Muslim Brotherhood he said that he is well known he is a member and he had been arrested a few times and he has been a member since 2000 and even during the previous Mubarak regime he was arrested a few times. I put that he did not notify the Department that he would be perceived as a Muslim Brotherhood because of his brother. He responded that he did not mention it or raise it because at the time he lodged his application his brother was not in prison. He said that he was arrested a few times and a member of Muslim Brotherhood but a few times they were told he was in the Department of Security and he used to be released and he never stayed long. They were never persecuted because of him.
I put to the applicant that is he was not estranged from his family, as he was able to get hold of the documents submitted. He responded that he rarely communicates with his family, he does not say that he is full estranged from them but it is very rarely, perhaps every 6 months he talks with his nephew, they are not accepting with his ideology.
I put to the applicant that the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. DFAT Report[1] states that all persons with Muslim Brotherhood links are likely to be subjected to surveillance and monitoring of their activities. I put that at the previous hearing the applicant claimed that he was threatened by physical harassment from the Muslim Brotherhood Group, which he never reported but he did not advise the Department that he received threats of physical harassment from the Muslim Brotherhood Group when he lived in Egypt. He said that it is true that the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists, they are very numerous and no-one can give a figure.
[1] DFAT Country Report Egypt 2019
I put that the applicant he claimed to fear harm from his brother-in-law. He said that was previously. He is brother of his ex-wife. He was the one who kept inciting her against him. Asked if he fears harm now, he said if he returned now, she is his ex-wife but if he knows he is in Egypt he would repeat the same things and tell people he not a good person. He has a daughter, his niece and even separation has occurred the mentality of people would continue. I put that merely being rude or nasty about his ex-brother in law is not a threat of serious harm.
I put that when he returned to Egypt from [Country 1] he did not fear harm from his brother-in-law, then so why would he do so now. He said that when he chose to follow only the Koran no one knew, only his wife. When there were troubles with his wife she would speak to her family and mentioned his ideology. Her brother encouraged her to divorce from him. He started talking with him and telling him to divorce his sister as they are different. He had a daughter from the marriage and when it comes to Egypt, as a cultural thing, if you want to judge someone in a negative way you can say they are stingy and these people are different. When they discovered he is following ideology, it became serious when they found out his family were not following him.
Put to the applicant that he did not suffer any serious harm in Egypt as he only lived there prior to 2005 and short visits until he came to Australia in 2013. He left Egypt for [Country 1] in 2005. He returned to Egypt 3 or 4 times, for 2 weeks, then for 1 month in 2008, 4 -5 weeks in 2009, 3 months in 2010 and 1 month in 2012. He departed [Country 1] for Australia in 2013. Therefore, over an 8 year period he returned to Egypt for about 6 ½ months during those 8 years. I put that these visits suggested he had no fear of harm when he returned and that he came to Australia in order to work and visit his brother. He responded that when he left Egypt it was in 2005 and he returned in 2008, he did not go back except in 2008 he stayed for 2 weeks. He went in August 2008 before marriage. He married in 2009 for 1 month and everything was going well and everything was going well and they did not know he was Koranic. In 2010 he went back to Egypt for 3 months. His daughter was born on [date]. his work in [Country 1] was going so well. He did not have any problems. His wife visited him twice in [Country 1] in 2012, she went back to Egypt. He followed her and they had arguments, she told her brother this and that, he is not a good person, he follows the Koran and she was asking her brother to find a way to get separated and divorce. When he saw the other face of the brother, he became rude and was calling him names.
I asked the applicant about his brother in Australia asked about their relationship he said that it is not so strong they talk every now and then. His brother is in [city].
He said that he was living a very good life in [Country 1], he had a very good salary and a good life, everything was going on well. He came to Australia to seek protection and he does not want to be bullied and does not want to be mistreated and it is the main reason to seek protection. Put that he did not seek protection until after he was unsuccessful at obtaining another visa. He responded that he was unfamiliar with rules and regulations and he consulted with solicitors and agents and they said they he should not lodged application for residence in [Country 1], he could not apply for protection. He was advised to apply for another visa. He did not want to return to [Country 1] and be subjected to bullying and the mistreatment and harassment. Put that he could have stayed in [Country 1] if he feared harm in Egypt, he said that it is true that he could have continued to stay there but he was known in his community even there, they were nasty and bullied him and called him names. Even if he went to another [country]. He came to Australia as he wants to live freely as he has had enough of being bullied and harassed.
I asked the applicant to confirm that the person he referred to previously as Rashid was Adnan Rashid, the Quranist academic who had an internet site. He responded that Mustafa Rashed, he is one of the guys, he is not a disciple to anyone and likes to listen to him and Mansour and what their ideas are and lecturing. He was trying to rationalise and think and he used to open the book and trying to understand.
Mustafa Rashed is the mufti of Australia and he refers to the holy Koran. He has talks on utube. When it comes to Rashed he introduces himself as the Mufti of Australia.
I put to the applicant that he told the Tribunal that he first became interested in Quranism when he was in prep school. One his friends with whom he was playing soccer called him an infidel and he started to search about the religion. He told the Department, at interview, that he started to question his faith sometime around 1996 or 1997 but he formed the Quranist view in 2005, 2 weeks after he arrived in [Country 1]. In his PVA he said that after arriving in Australia, the applicant had problems with his Australian brother who practices Sunni Islam. The applicant initially thought that he (the applicant) may be an atheist but after conducting research and talking with people, he realised that he is a Muslim who follows the Koran only. He responded that when he was at prep school there was a Christian came and told him not to play with him and he called him an infidel and he went inside the mosque to explore his religion. He saw people rubbing the wood or grace of the shrine and he was asking himself why are they not praying to our lord. After he witnessed such scenes and he went to his father asking why do people behave in this way. His father answered him that they are trying to become closer to the lord. At that time, he was just exploring and make sense. His father obtained a sheik as his tutor. When he argued with that sheik his response was to say that he would report him. It was the seeds of fear that was planted in him. In 2005 when he in [Country 1] it was a Friday he was praying in a Shite mosque, he was not aware there were different Muslim groups. He learned in [Country 1] there were various sects. In regard to his brother he never considered him to be an atheist.
I put that he has never expressed his views publicly in Australia or in Egypt or in [Country 1]. He has not posted on the internet or on social media. He responded that it is true he has never written or published anything on social media. To have a discussion with someone and he is siting in a group and would like to give his idea and based on what it mentioned. If he disagrees, they call him an infidel and he cannot say that he believe in 2 ideas and they say “whatever you believe in just keep it to yourself”. To have such discussions in Egypt or [Country 1] you cannot keep it a secret as everyone would know. I asked him if he has liberal Muslim views. He said he is a liberal Muslim. He has his own views based on the Koran.
I put that he would not express his views on the internet or publicly in Egypt. He said that had he published anything on the internet, the bullying would start and calling him names. They would consider him an infidel and an apostate. It is a crime in Egypt.
Asked what he fears about returning to Egypt, he said that the Muslim Brotherhood and the ordinary people who follow them and the fundamentalists, those people consider anyone different should die.
I put that he is a resourceful man so he would be able to live wherever he liked in Egypt. Article 62 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of movement, residence and emigration. There is no legal impediment to internal movement within Egypt, and Egyptians can and do relocate for a variety of reasons. Major cities, such as Cairo and Alexandria, offer Egyptians greater opportunities for employment. He responded that what has been mentioned in the Egyptian constitution has not been implemented. The first thing people talk about is religion. He would be asked why he does not come and pray in the mosque and he wants to pray on his own and therefore they would say that he is speaking and talking and he would not be able to live in other places and it is not the place where he is born. There was a Shia who started living in a rural area in one of the governates and he want to interpret the marriage of pleasure and as they rejected his ideas they killed him. What has been published and promoted in the media is not everything.
At the conclusion of the hearing the applicant said that he loves freedom and peace and want to live in a place where people are not nasty and do not bully or harass him with no restrictions with a fear that someone will attack him. Not everything that has been published or promoted in the media is correct such as Egypt being a country of democracy. There are incidents were people are detained and pulled in the streets and they are missed and killed and no-one would know. He has no-one, he does not have a house and his mother has passed away. His daughter has been brain washed and told that he is an agnostic. He has his own views and ideas and what he thinks he expresses to others and over there it is not appreciated.
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE
Religion is central to identity in Egypt. Egypt’s constitution states that Islam is the state religion, and the principles of sharia are the primary source of legislation. Sunni Muslims comprise approximately 90 per cent of the population, Coptic Christians make up between eight and ten per cent, and the remainder consists of small numbers of other religious minorities, including Shi’a Muslims, Sufi Muslims (officially considered Sunni) non-Coptic Christians, Baha’i, and Jews. The government officially recognises three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Article 98(f) of the Egyptian Criminal Code provides for prison sentences of up to five years and/or fines of up to EGP1000 ($AU145) for ‘exploiting and using religion in advocating and propagating extremist thoughts with the aim of instigating sedition and division or disdaining and contemplating any of the heavenly religions, or prejudicing national unity or social peace’. Articles 160 and 161 proscribe various acts connected with religion, including disturbing religious ceremonies, violating the sanctity of religious buildings or cemeteries, printing adulterated versions of holy books, or imitating religious ceremonies for the purpose of ridicule.
Quranists[2] are a small group of Muslims who regard the Qur’an as the only valid religious source for Islam. In Egypt, they have experienced state harassment due to its perception of the group as unorthodox. In 2007, for example, four Quranists were arrested while accused of defaming Islam, sparking condemnation from human rights groups. A Quranist writer was also detained at Cairo airport in November 2009 and refused the right to travel out of the country. In October 2010, a Quranist blogger was arrested in what was described as ‘forced disappearance’ and remained in prison for three months before being released.
[2]
Quranists[3] have been persecuted by religious institutions and governments across the Middle East. According to a report by Minority Rights Group International on religious minorities in Egypt, this community is viewed by major institutions such as al-Azhar to be bidah (false innovation). As a result, the community faces severe hostility. This includes hate speech and incitement by senior al-Azhar officials, who accuse Quranists of seeking to undermine Islam. Over the years, they have been harassed and subject to arbitrary arrests. According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), there were 15 known ongoing cases and investigations under Article 98(f) in 2017, an increase from 2016. Many of the cases involved expression on social media. The majority of charges filed have been against Sunnis, including a cleric who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in February 2017 for questioning various interpretations of Koranic texts on Facebook. The majority of those sentenced to prison terms, however, have reportedly been non-Muslims.
[3]
Quranists[4] believe that only the Quran, and not the Sunna -- Prophet Mohamed's sayings and doings -- should form the framework for Islamic thought and practice, a position seen as verging on heresy by many Islamic scholars. Islamic thinker Ahmed Sobhi Mansour who lives in the US, has published several books and articles suggesting that the process of compiling the Hadith (the prophet's sayings) was inherently flawed, and that many sayings attributed to the prophet may well not have been uttered by him. Mansour, and other Quranists, argue that the Qu’an should be the only source of Islamic thought, noting that the Sunna has been tainted with many inaccurate hadiths and is therefore not a reliable source for understanding Islam. According to Islamic scholar Abdel-Fatah Asakir, it is a train of thought that only emerged in Egypt in the second half of the 20th century. Mainstream Islamic thought promotes the Qu’an as the primary text in Islamic jurisprudence but maintains that scholars also rely on the Hadith, and the Sunna, in issuing fatwas.
[4] El-Khashab, Karim 2007, 'Matters of Faith', Al-Ahram Weekly Online, Issue no. 852, 5-11 July -
Ahmed Subhy Mansour[5] is an Egyptian American activist, whose website describes him as an Islamic scholar with expertise in Islamic history, culture, theology, and politics. He founded a small Egyptian Quranist group that is neither Sunni nor Shia, was exiled from Egypt, and lives in the United States as a political refugee. Sheikh Mansour was fired from Al-Azhar University after expressing his Hadith rejector views.
[5]
According to a 2009 article in the NY Times[6] Muslim reformers call themselves "Koranists" because they focus solely on the Koran and advocate a modern interpretation of Islam that rejects Shariah law. These self-declared leaders of the "Islamic Reformation" number in the thousands and are connected globally through the Internet. For nearly a decade, as this movement has gained momentum, they have come under increased attack from the Egyptian government for their religious ideas. Al Azhar University, which is based in Cairo and is the leading center for conservative Sunni learning in the world, has rejected the views of the Koranists and has sought to systematically dismantle the movement. To curry favor with this influential religious establishment, the Egyptian government has brutally cracked down on members of the Koranist movement, leading to the imprisonment and torture of over 20 members and the exile of many more. This unique collaboration between the government and Islamic traditionalists refutes current claims by the state that Egypt is secular and that it is working to fight extremism and terrorism.
[6]
In March 2010, DFAT advised that “there is a very small community of Koranists living in Egypt - approximately 50 - many of whom are related”.
DFAT Report dated 28 January 2014 provided information on the situation for Quranists in Egypt as follows: Koranists
3.51 There is a very small number of Koranists in Egypt, thought to be less than 1000. Koranists in Egypt have no defining characteristics (i.e. their names, their dress, their jewellery) that ordinarily distinguish them from other Egyptians, and they do not live in a recognisable community.
3.52 Although Koranism is not considered a legitimate denomination of Islam in Egypt, Koranists identify themselves as Muslim, including on their national identity cards. During the Mubarak era there were a number of arrests of Koranists. DFAT is unaware of any Koranist being arrested on account of their faith since the July 2013 military intervention.
3.53 Due to widespread societal distrust of Koranism, the majority do not reveal their religious identity and on a day-to-day basis face no discrimination on account of their faith. If a Koranist's religious identity becomes known, DFAT assesses a Koranist would face the same level of discrimination as Shias in Egypt. This could include employment insecurity (from private sector jobs) and other forms of societal discrimination. However, such discrimination would be heavily dependent on the education levels and socio-economic situation of their neighbours. In urban middle-class areas, Koranists would be unlikely to face significant harassment.
3.54 DFAT assesses that it would be unlikely that Koranists (even if their identity were known) would face violence in Egypt under ordinary circumstances. In rural or conservative areas of the country, the risk of violence would increase if a Koranist undertook activities that called attention to their differences with other Muslims. In middle class, urban areas, it is unlikely that Koranists would face violence in any circumstance. DFAT is not aware of any killings of Koranists.

Previous Egyptian Governments and the country's religious authorities are hostile towards the Quranist population. The Egyptian authorities have systematically harassed Quranists, physically abusing group members and arbitrarily detaining them. There are reports from 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 of the arrests and detention of small numbers of Quranists[7]. Quranists, in the past, report strong community hostility from Sunnis and Muslim Brotherhood members. Egyptian Quranist founder Mansour is openly dismissive of the Hadith and publicly criticises the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists. The Quranist website, reports that it was cyber attacked in November 2020 its entire data base was deleted. It noted that articles by Mansour and other Ahl Alquran writers continues to be provided via a Facebook site
DFAT Report[8] states that while Muslim Brotherhood leadership figures and members continue to pursue political activities actively, either within or outside the party structure, they are highly likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Inactive members, party supporters and those with family links to members are less likely to be personally targeted, but still face a risk of arrest, prosecution, or dismissal from state employment should their affiliations become known to authorities. All persons with Muslim Brotherhood links are likely to be subjected to surveillance and monitoring of their activities.
[8] DFAT Country Report Egypt 2019
REASONS AND FINDINGS
I accept that the applicant is a national of Egypt and is not a national or citizen of any other country or has a right to enter and reside in any country other than Egypt and therefore I find that the applicant is not excluded from Australia's protection by s.36(3) of the Act. I also find that Egypt is the applicant's “receiving country” for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).
The assessment of the applicant’s credibility and reliability as a witness is a matter of central importance to my consideration and determination of the application. I am not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant. In assessing credibility, I have also been guided by the Tribunal’s 'Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility' and 'Guidance on Vulnerable Persons'.
DFAT report[9] states that religion is central to identity in Egypt. The country's constitution states that Islam is the state religion and that the principles of Sharia are the primary source of legislation. While it does not deal specifically with a person's conversion to Quranism, the DFAT Report notes that there is no statutory prohibition in Egypt on a person converting from one religion to another. However, converts from Islam to other religions are not generally subject to officially sanctioned violence, detention or surveillance. However, they face significant societal discrimination in the form of rejection, ostracism and sometimes violence from their families or communities. Such discrimination is worse in poorer and rural areas, which tend to be more socially conservative. The level of discrimination is likely to be higher if the convert engages in proselytization. DFAT did not report on Quranists in its 2019 report.
[9] DFAT Country Report Egypt 2019
The main issue in this review is whether the applicant is a Quranist who would come to the adverse attention of Sunnis in Egypt and face serious or significant harm as a consequence of his religion.
At the first Tribunal hearing the applicant often did not answer the questions I asked and continuously set about describing Quranist beliefs in what appeared to be parrot fashion. I have no information before me to suggest that the applicant is unable to concentrate and respond relevantly to questions put to him. I have considered whether there was an issue with the interpreter or whether, because the hearing was held via video during COVID lockdown in Sydney, the applicant did not fully understand the questions I asked. I held a 2^nd hearing using a different interpreter. The applicant answered questions asked in a more forthright manner at that hearing. I am satisfied that the applicant in both hearings understood the interpreter and interacted with the interpreter.
I accept that Quranists who publicly espouse their beliefs have suffered harm in Egypt, there are reports from 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 of the arrests and detention of small numbers of Quranists[10]. The independent evidence before me, outlines above, indicates that in 2009 members of the Quranist movement in Egypt, were imprisoned and tortured, others were exiled. Over the years, they have been harassed and subject to arbitrary arrests. In 2007, 4 Quranists were arrested while accused of defaming Islam, sparking condemnation from human rights groups. A Quranist writer was also detained at Cairo airport in November 2009 and refused the right to travel out of the country. In October 2010, a Quranist blogger was arrested in what was described as ‘forced disappearance’ and remained in prison for three months before being released.
I accept that on 22 August 2020[11], ten members of the family of Ahmed Sobhy Mansour, a high profile Quranist, were arrested. All of them were released later except Reda Abdel-Rahman who is a teacher in an Azhar Institute. Abdel-Rahman was arrested pursuant to Emergency Law in 2008, and then detained in 2016. After his release, he stopped writing or posting.
[11]
I accept that those who express their religious views publicly or via social media can suffer serious harm in Egypt. The applicant was able to quote, at hearing, Quranist ideals and beliefs. I note that details of Quranist ideals are readily available on the internet and are in the public domain.
I do not accept that the applicant is Quranist. When asked, at the end of two hearing days if he has liberal Muslim views, he said he is a liberal Muslim. He has his own views based on the Koran.
I do not accept that the applicant is a witness of truth.
Firstly, the applicant told the Tribunal that he first became interested in Quranism when he was in prep school. One his friends with whom he was playing soccer called him an infidel and he started to search about the religion. He told the Department that he started to question his faith sometime around 1996 or 1997 but he formed the Quranist view in 2005, 2 weeks after he arrived in [Country 1]. He also said that after arriving in Australia, he had problems with his Australian brother who practices Sunni Islam. He initially thought that he may be an atheist but after conducting research and talking with people, he realised that he is a Muslim who follows the Koran only. When put to him, he responded that he was just exploring the religion to make sense. In 2005 when he in [Country 1] it was a Friday, he was praying in a Shite mosque, he was not aware there were different Muslim groups. He learned in [Country 1] there were various sects. In regard to his brother he never considered him to be an atheist. I do not accept his explanation. The applicant did not explain the inconsistency of when he became a Quranist.
Secondly, the applicant left Egypt in 2005 and left [Country 1] for Australia in 2013. His evidence regarding dates that he returned to Egypt varied at both Tribunal hearings. Despite the inconsistency in dates, I am satisfied that he returned to Egypt during those 8 years for about 6 months overall. His former wife went to [Country 1] twice in 2012 and then returned permanently to Egypt. The applicant followed her and they had arguments. The applicant claims that she told her brother the applicant was not a good person, he followed the Koran and she asked her brother to find a way for them to separated and divorce. When the applicant saw her brother, he was rude to the applicant and called him names. I give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that he was verbally abused and verbally attacked by his brother-in-law in Egypt, I accept that his wife left him. I find that the verbal attacks on the applicant by his former brother-in-law do not amount to serious harm.
Thirdly, the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal stated that he was not physically harmed in Egypt. When I put to him at hearing that nothing had happened to him when he lived in Egypt, he said that he was verbally abused and physically attacked. When I put that he did not advise Department that he was physically attacked in Egypt, he said that he told the Department he was attacked verbally and physically. I accept that being called an infidel at school and being taught religion by a Sheikh who told the applicant that he will tell the police that he was an infidel amounts to verbal abuse, the applicant does not suggest that such verbal abuse continued after he started working in [year] until he left to go to live in [Country 1] in 2003. I find that the applicant was not verbally abused after he left school and I find that such verbal abuse does not amount to serious harm. The applicant does not claim to have suffered physical harm from anyone despite his submission. I am satisfied that the applicant was not physically harmed in Egypt when he lived there or on any of his return visits to Egypt after he moved to [Country 1]. His numerous returns indicate a lack of a subjective fear of persecution.
Fourthly, I accept that there are few Quranists in Australia and there is not an identifiable community in Australia. Quranists communicate via the internet. The applicant, when asked how he engages with Quranism in Australia, claimed to contact and to follow Mansour and Rashid. Mustafa Rashed is an Australian imam who claims to be the mufti of Australia[12] and is being sued by the Australian Council of Imams. Mansour is a well-known Quranist who express his views on Utube and writes articles, via the internet on Ahl-Alquran.com, an internet site of the International Quranic Centre and who fled Egypt for his publicly expressed beliefs.
[12]
I asked the applicant when he last [accessed] Mansour’s Quranist internet site he said that he has lists of speeches and he follows him. It was last week but it was recorded. The evidence before me is that the International Quranic Center’s internet site published articles written by Mansour and other scholars, suffered a cyber-attack in November 2020 and again in January 2021 and the database was deleted. I am of the view that had the applicant accessed the International Quranic Center’s internet site last week, he would have known that the internet site was hacked and that articles etc of that internet site were being published on Facebook. The applicant was also not aware of Rashed being sued. I am of the view that the applicant, whilst being aware of one well-known Quranist Mansour, did not communicate with the Quranist movement last week, as claimed by the applicant.
Fifthly, the applicant did not apply for a PV until some 4 years after his arrival in Australia. When put to him that he did not seek protection until after he was unsuccessful at obtaining another visa, he responded that he was unfamiliar with rules and regulations and he consulted with solicitors and agents and they said they he should not lodge an application for protection, as he had a residence permit in [Country 1]. The applicant engaged on a number of occasions with migration agents. I find it implausible that he was unfamiliar with the rules and regulations in light of his pursuit of other visas available in Australia. Further, having an unexpired residence permit in [Country 1] at the time of application for a PV does not exclude a person from applying for a PV. I am satisfied that the applicant waited until he had exhausted entitlements to other visas in Australia prior to applying for a PV. It indicates a lack of a subjective fear of persecution.
Sixthly, the applicant claimed at the Tribunal hearing that he was threatened by physical harassment from the Muslim Brotherhood Group, which he never reported. He did not advise the Department of this claim. When put to him he responded that it is true that the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorists, they are very numerous and no-one can give a figure. He did not explain the inconsistency.
Seventhly, when I asked the applicant how he intended to practise his religion in Egypt his response was vague and non-responsive. He said that he cannot return back to Egypt. His daughter has been informed that he is dead because of his belief, his family do not recognise him as a sibling and he does not have accommodation in Egypt. His brother is in prison as a Muslim Brotherhood and he is scared they can put him in prison. If the government does not put him in prison the people will do that. I am of the view had the applicant practised Quranism in either Egypt or Australia he would have been able to discuss in some detail how he proposed to practise his religion.

100. I am satisfied that the applicant is not a witness of truth. I am satisfied that he has created his claim of being a Quranist in order to obtain a visa to remain in Australia, where he now has a wife and step-children. I am satisfied the applicant is a Sunni Muslim.
101. I therefore find that the applicant, when he lived in Egypt did not have disagreements with his family about his religious beliefs, he was not threatened by anyone and accused of being an infidel, and neither his brother-in-law nor his brothers believe he is a follower of Quranism. I do not accept that his marriage failed because of his brother-in-law’s pressure on his wife. I do not accept that because of his religious views he had lost everything in Egypt, his wife, his family and his inheritance, or that his family are against him or that he is estranged from his family. I do not accept that his brother or brother-in-law are members/supporters/followers of the Muslim Brotherhood or that his brother-in-law incited his wife against him. I am satisfied that the applicant did not suffer any harm for a refugee reason when he lived in Egypt or when he returned to Egypt on a number of occasions over an 8 year period when he resided in [Country 1]. I am satisfied that when he lived in [Country 1] he did not become interested in Quranism, did not express any Quranist view or that he was not aware of his Sunni Muslim faith. I am also satisfied that the applicant was not threatened by 2 persons in Australia about his religion. I am satisfied he did not suffer any harm in Australia for expressing Quranist views or for any other reason. I accept that he does not discuss Quranist views with his Australian citizen brother as I am satisfied the applicant does not genuinely hold Quranist views.
102. He claimed in [Country 1] they were nasty and bullied him and called him names. The applicant does not claim to have preached or taught religious lessons or espoused Quranist views publicly or in private in [Country 1]. I do not accept that he was bullied or called names for reasons of his religion in [Country 1]. As I do not accept that the applicant is a Quranist and I have found that he is a Sunni Muslim, I find that in [Country 1] the was able to practice his religion, Sunni Muslim.
103. I have considered all of the applicant’s evidence singularly and cumulatively. I do not accept the applicant is a witness of truth. I do not accept that the applicant fled Egypt fearing serious harm. I am satisfied the applicant went to [Country 1] to live and work and then came to Australia in order to work.
104. I am required to assess whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm for a refugee reason or a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to Egypt, within a reasonably foreseeable future.
105. I reject the applicant’s claims that he suffered any harm in Egypt. I accept that he and his first wife are estranged and divorced and that he has a daughter there. I do not accept that the applicant will lose the right to his daughter or his family inheritance or that his daughter has been told he is dead as I do not accept that the applicant is a witness of truth. I also do not accept that his brother-in-law corrupted his wife with fundamentalist religious views that led to his marriage breakdown.
106. I put to the applicant that when he returned to Egypt from [Country 1] he did not fear harm from his brother-in-law. He explained that his brother-in-law spoke with him and told him to divorce his sister, he was judged in a negative way and her family found out his family were not devotees of the applicant’s beliefs. As the applicant is not a witness of truth and as I have found that the applicant’s brother-in-law is not a member/supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood I do not accept that his brother-in-law will tell people he is not a good person and I find remote the chance that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm from his brother-in-law. His fears of harm from his brother-in-law are not well founded.
107. The applicant claims that he has very little contact with his family and that he has an acrimonious relationship with them after his mother died. When I asked the applicant how he had received documents in regard to his brother’s arrest/detention/disappearance, he said that his nephew sent them to him. As I do not accept the applicant is a witness of truth, I do not accept that he has an acrimonious relationship with his family or in-laws over his religious stance. I do not accept that family members or anyone else has threatened him.
108. The applicant claims that whilst in Australia he claimed to express his views in Australia. Asked how he expressed his Quranic opinion in Australia, he said that in 2014 “we were sitting with different sheiks in a restaurant and he expressed his opinion”. They stopped him from talking any longer. As soon as he expressed his opinion, they attacked him verbally and said he was an infidel. The applicant claims that he met with 2 persons called [two friends’ names] and they are convinced with Quranism. Asked how many other people are aware he is a Quranist, he said that when he starts to discuss the matter of Koran with other persons they start to attack and talk to him about Sunna and as soon as he tells them his views, they tell him he is an apostate and an infidel. He last discussed it 4 or 5 months ago. The applicant does not claim to have suffered any harm from any discussion he claimed to have had. When I put that he has never expressed his views publicly in Australia or in Egypt or in [Country 1] and he has not posted on the internet or on social media, he responded that “it is true”. As I am satisfied the applicant is not a witness of truth, I do not accept that he had conversations with the different sheikhs in a restaurant and with other persons who he claimed called him an infidel or that he has expressed Quranist views to others either privately or in a public setting in Egypt or in Australia or in [Country 1].
109. The applicant claims that on his return to Egypt he would not conceal his religious views and express them publicly and/or to family/friends and as a consequence he will suffer harm from his family, his brother-in-law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the community. I have rejected the applicant’s claims that he has an acrimonious relationship with his family, I do not accept that his brothers, or brother-in-law, are members of the Muslim Brotherhood and as I do not accept that the applicant was or is a Quranist, I am satisfied the applicant will not express Quranist religious views publicly or privately and thereby suffer harm from the community, his family, his ex-wife’s family or the Muslim Brotherhood. I am satisfied he will practise Sunni Muslim religion.
110. Further, I have considered country information[13] provided by the applicant regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant claimed that he received threats of physical harassment from the Muslim Brotherhood Group. He also claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood Group cannot be controlled by the Egyptian forces in Egypt, the chance of being tracked down by the Muslim Brotherhood group is high as the Muslim Brotherhood is scattered throughout Egypt and he cannot practice his method of religion in peace without being scolded and/or assaulted by the Muslim Brotherhood Group. He will have services limited for him to lead a normal life.

[13] Marked Exhibit B attached to applicant’s submission provided to Tribunal - 7 April 2021
111. Whilst the articles provided by the applicant to the Tribunal describe in some details the history and actions of the Muslim Brotherhood and outline bombings and explosions for which the Muslim Brotherhood are considered to be responsible, the information does not suggest that DFAT’s report is incorrect in its assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood.
112. Egypt and other nations have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. DFAT Report[14] states that while Muslim Brotherhood leadership figures and members continue to pursue political activities actively, either within or outside the party structure, they are highly likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Inactive members, party supporters and those with family links to members are less likely to be personally targeted, but still face a risk of arrest, prosecution, or dismissal from state employment should their affiliations become known to authorities. All persons with Muslim Brotherhood links are likely to be subjected to surveillance and monitoring of their activities.
[14] DFAT Country Report Egypt 2019
113. I do not accept that the applicant attracted the attention and antipathy of Sunni Muslims or the Muslim Brotherhood whilst he lived in Egypt. I do not accept that his family or his former wife’s family are supporters/members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, in light of the Sisi Government’s restoration of general law and order throughout most of Egypt and DFAT’s advice outlined above, I find remote the chance or the risk that the applicant will attract the attention and antipathy of Sunni Muslims and/or the Muslim Brotherhood. I therefore find remote the chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm from the Muslim Brotherhood, and I also find remote the risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm, by the Muslim Brotherhood.
114. As for his claim that the Muslim Brotherhood have associates in Sydney, I have no independent evidence to support his claim and I am of the view that were it the situation some mention would be made in independent sources.
115. I have considered documents that the applicant claims relate to his brother and his claims that his brother was imprisoned or missing for being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. A document translated and dated [in] November 2019 is a handwritten letter addressed to the Solicitor-General written by his brother’s wife that states that [the applicant’s brother] was arrested on [an earlier day in] November 2019. She asks the Solicitor-General for details of the arrest and whether her husband was sentenced. A second identical document is from the brother’s son, also dated [in] November 2019. A third document from the brother’s wife, similar in content is addressed to the Chief Prosecutor, also dated [in] November 2019. The documents do not state why the applicant’s brother was arrested. Further they are not arrest warrants, just letters of enquiry. As the documents are handwritten and are self-serving I place no weight on these documents as evidence that the applicant’s brother was arrested or that he was a member of Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, I do not accept that the applicant’s brother in Egypt is scared to stay in his home and is scared the government will harm him. I do not accept that the applicant’s brother is in prison or is missing.
116. The applicant claims that on his return to Egypt he would not conceal his religious views and express them publicly and as a consequence he will suffer harm from his family, his brother-in-law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the community. I do not accept that the applicant will practise Quranism in Egypt. I am of the view had the applicant practised Quranism in either Egypt or Australia or [Country 1] he would have been able to discuss in some detail how he proposed to practise his religion. He did not do so. I find that the applicant does not intend to practise Quranism in Egypt on his return.
117. I have rejected the applicant’s claims that he is estranged from his own family, I do not accept that his brothers are members of the Muslim Brotherhood and as I do not accept that the applicant was or is a Quranist, I am satisfied the applicant will not express Qurantist religious views publicly or privately and thereby suffer harm from the community or anyone else. Further, he has not publicly expressed his views in Australia.
118. The applicant has claimed that he is liberal Muslim. I do not accept that the applicant is a Quranist or that he holds or expresses beliefs that would put him at potentially significant odds with Egyptian society and authorities as claimed, even were he to be a liberal Muslim. As I have found he is not a witness of truth I reject his claim that he is a liberal Muslim. As stated previously I am satisfied he is a Sunni Muslim.
119. I do not accept that there is a real chance the applicant will be persecuted in Egypt for a refugee reason in the reasonably foreseeable future.
120. After considering his evidence and the material in DFAT Country Information Report: Egypt 2019, I am satisfied that he can return to Egypt and practice his Sunni Muslim religion freely. I accept that his mother has died but I do not accept that he will not be able to find accommodation in Egypt or employment. The applicant is resourceful, he has lived and worked in [Country 1] and he works in Australia.
121. I am not satisfied on the country information before me that there is a real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm for a refugee reason if he returns to Egypt in the reasonably foreseeable future.
122. On the basis of my findings above, I find that the applicant can return to Egypt and that there is not a real chance that he will be harmed on return for a refugee related reason now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
123. I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution in Egypt in the reasonably foreseeable future for any of the reasons cited in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act. His claimed fear of persecution is not well founded.
124. I must also consider 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 he will suffer significant harm.
125. As I have found that the applicant did not suffer any harm in Egypt when he lived there or visited there after moving to [Country 1] and as I am satisfied he is not a Quranist or a Liberal Muslim, I do not accept that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to [City 1 in] Egypt.
126. I am not satisfied that 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 the applicant will suffer significant harm i.e. that there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life, that the death penalty will be carried out on him, that he will be subjected to torture, that he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or that he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
127. Accordingly, I find that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS
128. 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 s.36(2)(a).
129. 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).
130. 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.
131. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Lilly Mojsin
Member

Annexure A
132. 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, he or she 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.
133. 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 because the person is a refugee.
134. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
135. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
136. 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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
137. 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.
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures

(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2021] AATA 4408

9 September 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Standing