1715247 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Egyptian national, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of his protection visa application. The dispute centred on his claims of persecution in Egypt due to his religious beliefs, specifically his adherence to Quranism, which he asserted placed him at odds with the dominant Sunni Islam practiced in Egypt and exposed him to harm from both his family and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, namely his religion, should he be returned to Egypt.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his religious journey, his estrangement from his family due to his questioning of Sunni teachings, and his eventual adoption of Quranist beliefs. It also examined his claims that his brother-in-law's association with the Muslim Brotherhood contributed to the breakdown of his marriage and that he feared being labelled an infidel and facing harm, including potential death, if his Quranist beliefs became known in Egypt. The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the credibility of these claims and determining whether they established a real chance of persecution.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs*, focusing on whether the applicant had discharged the onus of proving a real chance of persecution. The Tribunal found that while the applicant had experienced family discord and marital breakdown, these events were not sufficiently linked to a Convention reason to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the significant delay in the applicant's claims being articulated and the lack of corroborating evidence for the extent of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood or the broader community's reaction to his specific religious views. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Consequently, the application for a protection visa was refused.