1719232 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 2393

1719232 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2393 (18 May 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1719232

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Egypt

MEMBER:Peter Vlahos

DATE:18 May 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

This Statement was made on 18^th May 2022 at 10.00AM.

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – Coptic Orthodox Christian – pressured to accept an interfaith marriage with neighbour – particular social group – unmarried women that have no male guardian for support – victim of attempted sexual assault – high risk of gender-based violence – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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 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 on 7 January 2013 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 2 December 2011. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the application for Protection visa did not satisfy sub-section 36(2) of the Act.

3. The Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the delegate’s decision, and that decision was set aside by the Federal Circuit Court.[1] The matter is now before the Tribunal pursuant to an order of the Court.

   [1]Federal Circuit Order, File no. [number], MZACO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, per Judge A Kelly dated [in] August 2017.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 April 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

6. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, 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.

7. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. The issue in this case is whether Australia has protection obligations in respect of [the applicant]. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

    Country of origins and personal identity

13. Based on a copy of the applicant’s passport, which was provided to the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) and to the Tribunal at the hearing and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts thar the applicant is a national of the Arab Republic of Egypt and has had her claims (as presented) assessed against that country in relation to her claims made pursuant to s.36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act and on the basis of this evidence currently before the Tribunal, the Tribunal further concludes and finds the applicant’s identity as is claimed for the purposes of this decision.

    Department file before the Tribunal

14. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant’s Application for Protection visa. The Tribunal also has had regard to the material and information referred to in the delegate’s decision record. The applicant provided a copy of this decision record to the Tribunal with her application to Review the Department’s decision.

    Background – the Applicant’s migration/visa history

15. [In] September 2011 the applicant arrives in Australia on a six-month duration Tourist visa (Class TR, subclass 676) to also care for her pregnant sister at the time. On 2 December 2011 the applicant lodges an application for Protection visa (Class XA, subclass 866) and was granted a Bridging visa (Class WA, subclass 010) in association with this visa application. The application for Protection visa was subsequently refused by the Department and the applicant and now is the subject of this review by the Tribunal.

16. The applicant is a [age]-year-old female (DOB, [date]) born in Cairo, Egypt. She claims not have travelled to any other country before her arrival in 2011 in Australia. She identifies as Coptic Orthodox Christian. The applicant’s family consists of her mother (her father is deceased) and [sisters], one sister is in residence in Australia. She is educated, having progressed through the Egyptian education system and holds a bachelor’s [degree] having completed her studies in 2000. The applicant’s previous employment was as a [occupation] and was employed as such by various [institutions] before her arrival in Australia.

    The Applicant’s claims for Protection

17. The applicant provided the Department with the following claims:[2]

    [2] Department of Home Affairs, File no. [number]

    ·The applicant claims she is a practising Coptic Orthodox Christian by birth. Since her graduation from university in 2000, she was employed by various prominent [organisations] in Egypt. She joined her most recent employer, [Employer 1], in Dec 2011. Her employment was however terminated unexpectedly a month later when the applicant was still undergoing training, as the [employer] decided to shut down the retail outlets temporarily during the popular uprising.

    ·The applicant lost her source of income and also sustained losses on the stock market. She felt compelled to sell her personal belongings to support herself. She continued living with her retired parents and her younger sister who is still attending university. The applicant’s family house was marked with a red circle with a red cross inside to denote that the residence belongs to a Christian family.

    ·In May 2011, the applicant caught a taxi to go to her sister’s. The driver of the taxi was observed to be an elderly Muslim man. When the applicant realised the driver was driving towards a different direction, she pointed out to the driver that it was not the correct way. The driver responded that “I know where I am going” and “you non-believers are not permitted to lecture me”. He locked the doors of the car and continued driving towards an isolated area along a train line. The applicant screamed and reached her hand outside the window. The driver slowed the car down and when the car was coming to a stop, the applicant jumped out of the car as she was scared that the driver was going to harm her. The applicant landed on one of her shoulders and dislocated that shoulder. When she was still lying on the ground, she saw the taxi driver parked the car and ran towards her. The driver then attempted to drag her back to the car by pulling her shoulder. The applicant hit the driver between his legs and ran away. She crossed the road and went into a residential area so that the driver won’t be able to chase her driving his car. She then took the train home.

    ·At the end of May 2011, one of the neighbours approached the applicant’s mother to ask for the applicant’s hand in marriage for her son, [Mr A]. The two families have been neighbours for over ten years and the applicant went to the same university as [Mr A]. [Mr A]’s mother considered the applicant to be a good match for [Mr A] and promised that the applicant can retain her religion after marriage. The applicant declined the marriage proposal as she had no intention to marry a non-Christian and had no romantic feelings towards [Mr A].

    ·The applicant’s mother turned down the marriage proposal on the applicant’s behalf by stating to [Mr A]’s family that the applicant was already engaged to someone in the US to be married. The applicant has since observed [Mr A]’s associates following her around.

    ·At the end of June 2011, the applicant ran into one of [Mr A]’s friends at a grocery store, who allegedly declared to the applicant that “it is a sham that a beautiful girl like you is going to hell” and that “I am going to marry you in two days so say goodbye to your family”. The applicant was terrified by the threat and threw her grocery at him.

    ·The applicant discussed her situation with her sister who migrated to Australia on spouse ground in July 2010 and was expecting a child at that time. Her sister suggested to her to travel to Australia for a break. The applicant followed her sister’s advice and applied for a Tourist visa on 20/07/2011. On the same day the applicant also went to see a doctor for some medical conditions she had been experiencing and was prescribed with sleeping and anti-depressant medication.

    ·The applicant also approached a bishop for assistance, who arranged for her to travel to [City 1] to stay in a [monastery]. The applicant stayed in the [monastery] from 30/7/2011 to 23/8/2011 and left Egypt for Australia a week later.

    ·The applicant fears that she will be subjected to abduction, forced marriage and even murder at the hands of [Mr A]’s friend, should she return to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. She claims that the authorities in Egypt are unwilling and unable to provide her with adequate protection. Nor can she relocate elsewhere within Egypt to avert the feared harm.

18. On the 30 November 2011 the applicant submitted a statutory declaration which deposed the following claims:

    ·“Although the vulnerability that I sensed after losing my job was great, it was of a completely different nature and extent to that which I subsequently experienced. The following incidents, which l will recount, occurred after the Revolution, and after I became unemployed. I have been subjected to harsh and offensive persecution that has left me terrified for my life.

    ·“It is as if the veil of security and protection that my employment provided me with was lifted after I became unemployed. Within the confines of my workplace, I was fortunate to have been relatively well guarded against religious and sexual harassment. I felt that I was respected, and my efforts were valued, regardless of the fact that I was female and Coptic Christian. I had been well aware of the harassment that Coptic women faced every day on the streets. This was not new knowledge to me. I too was often subjected to snickering men throwing vulgar remarks at me as I walked the streets. This is an ordinary occurrence for Christian girls in Egypt. However, never did I anticipate that someday I would be subjected to the most frightening and hateful treatment that would make me fear for my life.

    ·“On a number of occasions, the drivers of my taxis had subjected me to verbal harassment. One incident stands out in my memory as the most horrifying day of my life. I had informed my taxi driver of the destination I wished to be taken to. My initial perception was that he was Muslim, as most taxi drivers are. As we were driving, I noticed that we were heading in the wrong direction - a route that I had never been on before. When l raised my concern to the taxi driver, he shouted, "Shut up you infidel bitch! I'm going to rape you!" I was so terrified and was literally trapped in the car, with nowhere to go. I began to panic and frantically tried to plan my escape. I quickly realised that my only means of escape was to jump out of the moving taxi. In a mindless state of terror, I opened the door and jumped out of the taxi. I knew I would be hurt, but at that moment I would have preferred to die than to be raped by the merciless taxi driver, who turned out to be a fanatical Muslim.

    ·“When I jumped out of the taxi, I thought that would be the end of it and I would be left alone to fend for myself in the street. I certainly did not anticipate that the taxi driver was so set on hurting me that he would park the car and nm towards me, determined to continue tormenting me. He pulled me by the arms, dragging me back to his car. I screamed with all my might and kicked his leg, which managed to loosen his grip on me. I broke free and ran as fast as I could from him and hid behind a building until he left. I felt paralysed with fear and so alone. This incident left me both physically and emotionally scarred and I couldn't stop crying. I cannot describe the look of hatred and revulsion in the eyes of the taxi driver. I have been severely psychologically impaired by this incident.

    ·“I did not report this event to the police, as I ordinarily would have, because after the Revolution the police authority had crumbled and there is now virtually no police presence. No police would have taken me seriously, let alone done anything to help me. In any event, the [local] Police Station had been burned down, so it was physically non-existent. It is the most disturbing feeling knowing that there is no one I can tum to for protection. I was left to harbour the incident in my memory.

    ·“I was unable to flee from this persecution, which became an ongoing affair. Even my own home provided no refuge. After the Revolution, the place of my residence in Egypt, [address], became increasingly exposed to attack by our Muslim neighbours. An Islamic group had marked my house with a symbol of a red circle with a red cross inside, to show that this was a Coptic Christian residence. We lived in very real and dire danger of being targeted for kidnap, rape or murder. Being female made my mother, sisters, and I particularly vulnerable to attack. There was nowhere that provided adequate protection for us.

    ·“One Sunday, as I stepped out of the house headed for Church, I was confronted by a group of bearded Muslim men. They stood near my house, staring at me in a menacing way. I was so afraid to continue on my way to Church and instead hurried back inside my house. I did not feel safe and felt like a hostage within my own home. A prison would have been safer. This basic freedom to go to Church well aware that I would be leaving the house at this time to attend the weekly Church service.

    ·“One time, one of our Muslim neighbours approached my mother and expressed her son's desire to take me as his wife. According to Sharia law, I had no right to reject such an offer. Knowing this, my mother had to lie and tell the lady that I was already engaged to someone else. The lady evidently did not believe my mother, as I noticed that she would monitor my movements and I frequently spotted her following me. I could never imagine abandoning my faith and marrying a Muslim man. This would go against everything I believe in.

    ·“Shortly after my mother was approached by our neighbour, I noticed a Muslim man following me as I was grocery shopping. He came very close to me, but I did my best to ignore him and refrain from making eye contact. However, the man came right up to me and said, "You'll marry me whether you like it or not and I'll come in two days to get you." The man then left. I cannot describe how devastated and afraid I felt. I did not want to go back home but at the same time, I couldn't think of any other place where I could seek refuge. I became severely depressed, and my mother took me to the psychiatrist who prescribed some anti-depressant medication for me. He also advised me to leave my place of residence and hide elsewhere.

    ·“As difficult as it was for me to do, I heeded the words of my psychiatrist and fled from home very late at night. I escaped to [City 1] and sought refuge in [a monastery] in the province of [name]. I am eternally grateful for the nurturing love and support that Sister [B] offered me. She harboured me in her home for around one month. No one knew of my presence except my parents. Not even my sisters knew where I was. l was well aware that this would not be a permanent home for me as Sister [B] did not have the resources to protect me for very long. During my time in the [monastery], I applied for a visa to come to Australia to visit my sister who was almost due to give birth. I was very grateful to have my visa granted, which meant that I would be able to find some relief from the suffocation of my life in Egypt.

    ·“Being in Australia meant that I could experience a level of comfort and protection that I have not felt in a long time. Unfortunately, though, the distance did not wipe away the vivid memories of the persecution that I lived through in Egypt. Watching the most recent uproar and violence that has been taking place in Egypt has revived horrific memories that have haunted me. I have been severely psychologically scarred by not only the afore-mentioned incidents but also the mere thought of returning to Egypt, my broken home.

    ·“My life has taken a drastic tum since the beginning of the year. I would never have imagined being in a position where I would be desperate to leave my home just for the mere hope of finding a protected place. There is nowhere else I can seek refuge apart from Australia. I am in no position to return to Egypt. It has been absolutely horrific to constantly envisage my impending death should I return to Egypt. I urge you to kindly consider my position and provide me with the much-needed protection in Australia as my life is currently in jeopardy.”

1. The applicant made statutory declarations on 1 May 2013, on 16 December 2013 and on 11 January 2022 which the Tribunal noted the contents of those declarations.[3]

   [3] See AAT File and Department of Home Affairs File

   EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING

2. The applicant said that she is currently working (since 2016) for a local [business] and specialises in [field]. The [business] she is currently working for was [Employer 2]. Also, the Tribunal was told that in 2013/2014 she was employed by [Employer 3] through [a] recruiting programme.

3. While in Egypt, the applicant stated that she had worked for [Employer 4] after she had completed her university studies and later progressed her employment into the [areas] in which she remained until the outbreak of the ‘Revolution’ in 2010/2011.

   Taxi Driver incident

4. The applicant said that one day she hailed a taxi in her local area with the aim of visiting her sister. During the trip, the applicant became aware that the taxi was not being driven to her requested destination. The applicant said that she asked the driver as to what was going on and his response (according to the applicant’s recollection) was to tell her to be quiet and that he knew where he was going. The applicant said that she responded to the taxi driver’s assurances, telling him that this was not the proper way to her sister’s home. What happened next according to the applicant, the taxi doors were locked, and the taxi-driver proceeded to hurl verbal profanities towards her and told her that (according to the applicant) he was “going to teach her a lesson…” The applicant started shouting from within the taxi in order to gain some attention from other people on the road and when the taxi stopped, she (according to the applicant) managed to crawl out of the taxi window and onto the highway. What happened next (according to the applicant) the taxi driver realising that she had gotten out of the taxi, stopped it on the side of the road, got out and proceeded to approach the applicant with the intention of harming her. Then, as the applicant was approached by the taxi driver, she (according to the applicant) “kicked him in his private parts” and run away.

5. The applicant said that because of this incident, she had suffered injuries to her legs and shoulders.

6. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – did she report this incident of attempted sexual assault to the police? The applicant said that she did not report this incident to the local police. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had no confidence in the Egyptian police. In particular, she told the Tribunal “…they do not do anything for Christians in Egypt…” The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – why, did she have such a negative opinion about the Egyptian police? The applicant said “…in Egypt, we are looked at (Coptic Orthodox Christians) as second-class citizens….” The applicant also described the Egyptian police as “…not trustworthy…”

7. The Tribunal asked the applicant – would it not have been proper to have reported this incident to the police? Again, the applicant stated that “the police would do very little for a Coptic Christian…” and in particular, “…a female…”

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant – would this be the case in today’s Egypt with regards to the Egyptian police? The applicant said that “…Police is the police…Christian girls are disappearing…” and the police choose “to do nothing…” The applicant said that she had “no confidence” in the police and that the policing system was a “…corrupted system…”

   The situation currently in Egypt (in 2022) when compared to 2010 and 2011

9. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – to compare the situation which existed Egypt when she decided to leave it in 2011 and now, in 2022 and the Tribunal added the further question, the situation had indeed changed for the better since President Sisi had come to office? The applicant described to the Tribunal, her own assessment of Egypt post-Moslem Brotherhood and after the fall of President Morsi. In her opinion, nothing had fundamentally changed for the better in Egypt for the long-term. The attitudes of Christians (Copts) and in particular towards Christian women was the same, if not getting worse. The applicant said that when the Moslem Brotherhood was in power, they had released many criminal elements into society from the jails and these criminal elements are still free within society and never hesitate (despite President Sisi efforts) to create havoc for Christians or women of the same faith.

10. The applicant said that the employment with ‘skill’ of ‘propaganda’ by the Egyptian state with its attention on the attitudes of the international community has successfully concealed the reality that confronts all Coptic Christians in Egypt. They (the Copts) continue to be victims of fanatics and Muslims according to the applicant. The applicant reminded the Tribunal of the in recent years attacks on Christians. The applicant emphasised the point that if matters are not widely reported as far as it concerns the Christians in Egypt, it was because the present government in Egypt had successfully concealed the true situation from the international media.

11. The applicant said personally nothing had changed in Egypt.

12. The applicant said that because of the major societal upheavals that erupted in Egypt in 2010 and 2011, she had lost her career and believes it would be difficult for her to return to a degree of normalcy if she was to return to Egypt. The applicant told the Tribunal that the instances of harassment and bullying she experienced in Egypt – for examples, the ‘humiliation’ and ‘insults’ levelled at her by unknown persons (Muslims no doubt) while going about her business in public (after the fall of Mubarak) had left scars on her thoughts and opinions concerning Egypt. The applicant said she could never accept that she would feel safe in Egypt today regardless of whatever reforms or good the present government had introduced. In the opinion of the applicant, Egyptian society was and continues to be vulnerable to religious fanatics which were release from prison into society by Morsi and are ‘out there’ waiting to inflict pain on Christians, other minorities and in particular women.

    The ‘Marriage proposal’ and its consequences

13. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – when did this marriage proposal happen? The applicant said that her neighbour’s mother approached her mother and asked if the two parents would consider ‘arranging the marriage’ between their two children.

14. The applicant told the Tribunal that the neighbours were Muslims but had a good opinion of her and wished their son to marry her despite the fact that the applicant was a Coptic Orthodox Christian.

15. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal to explain – why a Muslim family would contemplate as proper an inter-faith marriage? In other words, a marriage between a Muslim and Christian? The applicant said that [Mr A]’s mother (her neighbour’s mother, [Mr A] being the proposed groom) had assured her mother (the applicant’s) that if the marriage occurred as they wished, the groom’s family would have no issue with the applicant remaining a committed and practising Coptic Orthodox Christian.

16. The applicant said that the ‘marriage proposal’ was refused by the applicant’s mother and this created issues for the applicant’s family and for the applicant, personally.

17. The applicant then described a series of events which she observed concerning her neighbours after their marriage proposal was refused. The applicant described matters as follows to the Tribunal:

    ‘Salafists began to come and go from the neighbour’s house’

    ‘They would gather there (at neighbour’s house) regularly for prayers’

    The neighbour’s son (‘[Mr A]’) appearance had changed, ‘he had a beard without moustache (as Salafists have) and he dressed like a Salafist…’

18. The applicant then described her neighbour [Mr A] as follows:

    ‘… his appearance and what was going on and (I noticed) a lot of people whispering…People were coming and going from his home…”

    Also,

    ‘He ([Mr A]) was being treated by these people (who were visiting him) like ‘a God’…’

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant, what did she consider her neighbour [Mr A] was? The applicant said that he was ‘…a Salafist…100%...’ The applicant was asked by the Tribunal, how did she come to that conclusion about her neighbour, and the applicant’s response was ‘by his appearance…[and] not by his appearance only…by the people who visited him. They [the visitors] were VIPs…’

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant – how did she know that her neighbour’s visitors were as she described them, “VIPs”? Her response was, I saw they were [VIPs] from the number plates on the cars they travelled in. The number plates consisted of ‘2-3 numbers’ and the applicant added, ‘only important people have these number plates’ issued to them. The applicant also said that she observed ‘people coming and going with printed papers…’

21. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – how man years did you live with your neighbours in that neighbourhood? The applicant said, ‘long time…’

22. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – did the applicant speak personally to her neighbour’s son, [Mr A]? The applicant said ‘…no…’

23. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – why had the applicant not spoken to [Mr A]? The applicant said, ‘though we were neighbours for a long time, [she] did not have much to do with him…’

24. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – how many years did the applicant know her neighbour ([Mr A])? The applicant said she had known him ‘for many years’ and also referred to knowing about his “dirty work” and “deeds”.

25. The applicant also said that “she had never spoken to him” and that the ‘marriage proposal’ came from his ([Mr A]’s) mother to her mother and that she had nothing to do with it.

26. The applicant went on to tell the Tribunal “although we were neighbours for a long time [she] did not have much to do with him…” The applicant said that she “was scared of his appearance…” The applicant ended her remarks with the following words, “Oh my God…stay away…” (meaning her neighbour, [Mr A]).

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain – if she married her neighbour, would his family permitted her to remain a Christian – married to a Muslim? The applicant replied, “…exactly, in the Muslim religion, the wife (the applicant) would have to follow the husband’s religion…” In other words, if the applicant married her Muslim neighbour, “…I would become a Muslim…”

28. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain – why would a Salafist Muslim want or even consider marrying a Christian (Coptic) woman? The applicant explained, that in the Muslim faith it was considered the ‘duty’ of a Muslim “to convert an infidel (a Christian) to the true faith being, Islam”. If that occurred, the Muslim succeeding in doing this would gain benefits in heaven and amongst his fellow Muslims.

29. The Tribunal asked the applicant – was the applicant being forced into a marriage with a Muslim? The applicant said “…exactly…” and added, “why would I marry someone I was scared of…” The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain, if this was her opinion of her neighbour, how did she form that opinion, when she had not spoken to him? The applicant said, “you would not need to speak to him to know he was an extremist…”

30. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – how did the refusal of the marriage proposal impact on the applicant, personally? The applicant said that ‘one Sunday’ on her way to her local Church, an individual associated with her neighbour [Mr A] approached her in the street demanding that she say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to [Mr A]’s marriage proposal. The applicant recalled that she ‘did not engage’. As she proceeded towards her Church, she recalled she saw [Mr A] in a taxi. Then, as soon as she arrived at her church, she told her local priest what had occurred. The priest on hearing her dilemma told her to go to her home and not to leave her home. The applicant emphasised to the Tribunal the reality just after the ‘revolution in Egypt’ that many young girls (Christians) were being randomly abducted by groups of extremists.

31. After a period of two weeks having passed, according the applicant, she and her family made arrangements for her to leave Egypt to come to Australia.

32. The applicant said that her family’s home still remains closed, her family members fearing to return to the same despite the present situation in Egypt.

33. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – what is the applicant’s concerns with the Egypt of today? The applicant said that her life had been traumatised by instances she suffered of sexual assault and not being able to being the perpetrators of that crime to justice while in Egypt. The applicant said, that venturing out into the streets of Cairo, or any city in Egypt, a Christian Coptic female takes many risks of enduring battery and sexual assault. The applicant told the Tribunal that women like her, Christians are easily identified by street thugs that wait for their victims and rarely do the authorities attempt if an assault happens to find the perpetrators. The applicant also drew the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that she has on her person an easily identified ‘tattoo’ in the form of a ‘crucifix’ – the symbol of the Christian faith and that exposes her to random attacks in public by street thugs or religious extremists.

34. The applicant also said, that if she was to return to Egypt, she would return to an empty house and attempt to live therein as a single woman without a male protector. Therefore, this increases her exposure in the wider Egyptian society and in particular within her immediate local community. The applicant fears ‘sexual harassment’ and sexual abuse knowing that if this happened the authorities would not provide her with effective assistance or protection.

35. The applicant said that she was seeing a counsellor (while in Australia) concerning the issue of PTSD and the treatment of, as she described it to the Tribunal of “suicidal thoughts…” The applicant was asked if she had documents concerning these issues from treating medical practitioners (as the last on file was date 22/11/2013). The applicant was provided with time (until the 28^th April 2022) to provide further supporting documents.

36. The applicant provided no further oral evidence to the Tribunal

37. The applicant’s legal counsel, [Mr C] provided a set of written submissions and additional country information relevant to the applicant’s claims which the Tribunal took note of and has considered that submission in arriving at this decision.[4]

    COUNTRY INFORMATION – EGYPT – The Rule of Law – Religion - Christian Orthodox Copts – Status of Women – and Women’s rights

    [4] Applicant’s written submission dated 13 January 2022, submitted by [Law Firm 1], see AAT File.

38. The Tribunal has considered the most recent Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) country regarding the situation in Egypt[5] including the situation for Coptic Orthodox Christians and the rights of women.

    [5] DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt 17 June 2019

39. Coptic Christians comprise some 10 percent of Egypt’s population of 83 million. They are present in most parts of the country and are represented at all levels of society. Copts have access to all levels of education and are present in most areas of employment. However, Copts have long faced some degree of societal discrimination. Few Copts hold senior positions in institutions such as the military, universities, and the public service. There is also sporadic harassment of Christians in some areas, for example targeting women with uncovered hair. Discrimination and prejudice are more of a problem in poorer urban and rural areas.

40. The Egyptian Constitution recognises Christianity, along with Islam and Judaism and grants Copts the same rights and freedoms as other Egyptians.

41. However, Egypt is overwhelmingly a Sunni Muslim country and Egyptian laws and long-standing practices are generally designed to safeguard the majority. The two problems mentioned most frequently as impacting on Christian practice are restrictions on building or repairing churches and the operation of laws banning “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) or inciting sectarian strife”, commonly referred to as blasphemy law.

42. Sectarian tensions have increased in Egypt since the 1970s, due in part to economic problems and to weakening of law-and-order mechanisms. The resulting outbreaks of sectarian violence have mostly taken the form of vandalism and the destruction of property and have mostly taken the form of vandalism and destruction of property and have occurred mostly in Upper Egypt, although Cairo and Alexandria have also been affected.

43. Egypt has experienced a number of significant changes in recent years. The Mubarak regime was overthrown in January 2011 and was replaced with a military council which ruled until elections were held in June 2012, which were won by Mohammad Morsi of the Moslem Brotherhood. Morsi’s government was removed by the military in July 2013 and replaced with a military dominated interim government which banned the Moslem Brotherhood in December 2013 and arrested between 22,000 and 29,000 Muslim Brotherhood supporters or suspected members, of whom some 7,000 remained in pre-trial detention in July 2014.[6] Elections held in May 2014 saw former defence Minister Abdul Fatah Sisi elected President of Egypt.

    [6] Immigration Report at pp. 49-50 and Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2015, available at >

    While there is no evidence of a significant increase in sectarian violence during the time Morsi was President, there was an increase in the number of ultra-conservative Islamist groups such as Salafist parties and the frequency of negative and sometimes inflammatory anti-Christian statements which in turn contributed to an increase of threats and attacks on Christian communities in some areas.[7]

    [7] Issues Paper Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christians & State Protection, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 3 March 2012 [Immigration Report] pp. 54-55 and DFAT Thematic Report at paragraph [3.36].

44. Coptic Christians were greatly concerned about their future under the Islamist government and most welcomed the military intervention which removed Morsi. This contributed to the most serious outbreak of anti-Christian sectarian violence in recent times, which occurred in July and August 2013 when supporters of President Morsi attacked Christian churches, property and people. According to DFAT this violence was not orchestrated by the leadership of the Moslem Brotherhood but was carried out by radical supporters of the group in retaliation for what they saw was the significant role Christians played in Morsi’s removal from office.

45. According to DFAT there has been a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks against Copts under the Sisi administration. In a similar vein the US Committee for International Religious Freedom 2015, which covers 2014 and early 2015 stated that, while sporadic violence continued, the number and severity of violent incidents targeting Copts and their property had decreased significantly since the previous year.

46. In their Thematic Report of November 2015, DFAT stated that it was their assessment that the day-to-day life for most Coptic Christians was not overtly affected by communal tensions adding that:

    “…most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise with little regard to each other’s religious identity. However, small-scale disputes (such as neighbourhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community-level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas. Spikes in communal tensions can also coincide with broader political upheavals.[8]

    [8] Issues Paper Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christians & State Protection, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 3 March 2012 {Immigration Report} at pp. 54-55 and DFAT Thematic Report at paragraph [3.36].

1. Similarly, after reviewing information from a range of sources the UK Border Agency concluded in its Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians Report dated 30 June 2014, “although Christians do face personal and collective societal discrimination and repeated instances of sectarian violence, Christians in Egypt are not in general at risk of persecution or ill-treatment.”[9]

   [9] Country Information and Guidance Egypt: ‘Christians’, UK Border Agency, 30 June 2014, at pp. 7-8, available at

2. However, the most recent United States International Religious Freedom Report[10] indicates that the Egyptian government failed to respond to or prevent sectarian violence in some cases, in particular outside of major cities according to human rights advocates. It (the Egyptian government) continued to hold “reconciliation sessions” to address incidents of sectarian violence which adopted findings favouring members of the majority Muslim community most of the time. “Reconciliation sessions” after sectarian attacks were used instead of prosecuting perpetrators and these sessions precluded recourse to the judicial system because in most cases the parties agreed to drop charges and lawsuits and stipulated by the terms of the session. They failed to prosecute in some instances. It was also reported that religious minorities continued to face significant threats of sectarian violence according to religious and human rights groups. There were also reports of lethal sectarian violence continuing over the year.

   [10] United States, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, International Religious Freedom Report for 2015,

3. The November 2015 Thematic Report also indicates that Copts have access to state protection in Egypt. According to that report:

   “DFAT assesses that on a day-to-day basis in urban areas; the state has the capacity and willingness to provide protection to the Copts, and generally does so. Copts facing harassment are able to go to a local police station for protection in these areas. DFAT assesses that, under the Sisi Government, the security services see it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic grievances. However, societal discrimination may impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.

4. Nevertheless, in December 2016, a suicide bomber targeted a church service adjoining St Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, killing 29 and injuring 49. Following the previous attacks of February 2017 in el Arish, IS (Islamic State) claimed responsibility for two major attacks against Palm Sunday church services on 9 April 2017. The first attack occurred at a service in Tanta, killing 27 people and injuring over 70. The second attack occurred at a cathedral in Alexandria. At least 16 people were killed, and 66 people were injured in the Alexandria attack: Pope Tardos was saying mass at the cathedral at the time but escaped unharmed. In May 2017, in Minya, a gunman ambushed three buses and killed 29 people who refused to renounce their faith. In November 2018, militants ambushed three buses carrying Christian pilgrims to a remote desert monastery south of Cairo, killing 7 and wounding 19. In addition to these attacks, security services have reportedly thwarted a number of attempted attacks.[11]

   Discrimination

   [11] see, DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt, 17 June 2019, at paragraph [3.21] at p.18.

5. Discrimination based on religion is prohibited under Egyptian Law; however, Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Amnesty International reports that it and other human rights organisations have documented a pattern of discrimination against Coptic Christians in Egypt that has been prevalent for ‘decades’.[12] Similarly, the European Parliamentary Research Service states that Egypt’s religious minorities, including Copts, have suffered for decades from discrimination.[13]

   [12] Amnesty International 2013, ‘Egypt’: Security forces abandon Coptic Christians during deadly attack in Luxor, 23 July, Accessed 17 December 2013 CX316551; Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094.

   [13] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights – Prospect for Improvement? January 23, at p.1: see,

6. Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, however, in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[14] In October 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds.[15] The decree added Article 161(ii) which defines discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief.[16] It establishes a minimum and maximum fines (from EGP30,000 (approximately, AUD$4,929.00)[17] to EGP50,000 (AUD$8,216.00)) and/or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination. The article adds more severe penalties for government officials who commit a discriminatory act,[18] with a minimum sentence of three months’ imprisonment and or a minimum fine of EGP50,000 (AUD$8,216.00) and a maximum fine of EGP100,000(AUD$16,438.00).[19] USDOS reports, however, that the amendment does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[20] The report notes that during 2013 ‘there were no indications in the media that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.[21] Similarly, the January DFAT 2014 report on Coptic Christians states that while ‘anti-discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement.’[22]

   [14] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July 2014, Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at p.7 CIS27158.

   [15] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, at p. 4  Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206.

   [16] US State Department 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011-Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013

   [17] Based on foreign exchange rates of 4 February 2014 obtained from

   [18] US State Department 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 29 July 2014CIS29206

   [19] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 – Egypt, 30 July, Section 2, Accessed 17 December 2013

   [20] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014

   [21] US State Department 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, at p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206

   [22] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158

7. The 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an anti-discrimination clause. Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief.[23] Although the Constitution reaffirms Islam as the state religion, it recognises Christianity as one of the ‘heavenly religions’ and acknowledges the Coptic Orthodox Church as an official sect of Christianity.[24] However, Minority Rights Group International states that ‘it remains to be seen whether there will be a substantive legal and policy shift towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life.’[25] Reporting on the likely effect of Constitution, the EIPR states that ‘taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt, it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.’[26]

   [23] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F82D92048

   [24] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158; ‘What is new in Egypt’s draft constitution’ 2013, BBC News, 3 December Accessed 5 December 2013 CX316553

   [25] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples – Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January 2014 CX317623.

   [26] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights – Prospect of Improvement? 23 January, at p. 6 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044

8. Sources indicate that Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Several reports were located stating that despite initial optimism on the part of Copts, and public messages of support by President el-Sisi for the Coptic community, discrimination against the Copts has continued since el-Sisi was elected.[27] Regarding societal discrimination, DFAT assesses that the ‘community prejudice’ against the Copts is ‘pervasive’ but the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio-economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low-level and infrequent in middle class urban and rural areas.[28] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Moslems across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[29] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been more reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam’.[30] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination’.[31] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[32]

   [27] Amin, S 2015 “What now for Egypt’s Christians?” Ahram Online, 13 January Accessed 10 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1298; Fayek, M Copts in El-Sisi’s Egypt, Open Democracy, Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1BECAB9714; Kingsley, P 2015, ‘Egyptian President Attends Coptic Christmas Eve Mass in Cairo’, The Guardian, 8 January Accessed 6 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1385

   [28] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at p.7 CIS27158

   [29] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at 7 CIS27158

   [30] Ibid

   [31] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June at p.7 OGI180885B8

   [32] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094

9. Reports published by the United States Department of State,[33] the Carnegie Endowment,[34] Open Democracy[35] and Ahram Online[36] between 2013 and 2015 all state that Copts face official discrimination in Egypt, particularly with respect to appointments to senior positions within the public sector, public universities, security forces, judiciary and Egyptian government. In its January 2014 report on Copts in Egypt, DFAT provided a somewhat different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination.[37] While reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in the public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[38] DFAT does report, however, that ‘societal discrimination can create a “glass ceiling” for promotions as ‘Copts tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles and in the upper ranks of the military and security services.’[39] According to DFAT ‘subtle favouritism and patronage could rule Copts out of senior position.’[40]

   [33] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July 2014, Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206.

   [34] Brownlee J 2013, Violence Against Coptic Christians in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS2906

   [35] Fayek, M. 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714

   [36] Ahram Online is a state-owned English language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About Ahram Online Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring 2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Centre – Accessed 23 May 2013; Ezzat, D. Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469.

   [37] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at p.7 CIS27158

   [38] Ibid

   [39] Ibid

   [40] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at p.7 CIS27158

10. In DFAT’s Country Information Report – Egypt, dated 17 June 2019, the Department acknowledges, that most Christians observed the post-2011 Revolution ascendency of the Moslem Brotherhood with considerable apprehension. They regarded the Morsi government’s removal and restoration of general law and order as a cause for relief, and strongly supported the ascendency of Sisi to the presidency. Many Christians and representatives of other minority faiths reported that while things could always improve, they generally consider themselves better protected under President Sisi than previous Egyptian leaders. Christian religious authorities have consistently expressed appreciation for Sisi’s public messaging which has called upon Egyptians to place national unity above religious differences, and for his personal example: in 2015, Sisi became the first Egyptian President to attend Christmas mass at the St Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo and has attended every year since. Sisi has actively engaged with the Christian community, declaring days of national mourning or calling personally on Pope Tawadros to express his condolences following terrorist attacks against Christians. Local sources report that Christians generally remain strong supporters of Sisi, although (like other Egyptians) their initial enthusiasm has waned due to the lack of economic improvement and ongoing social difficulties in Egypt.[41]

    [41] see DFAT Country Report – Egypt – dated 17 February 2019, at pp.20-21

11. In its 2019 country report, DFAT assesses that Christians face a moderate risk of discrimination that is more likely to be societal than official in nature and is likely to vary considerably according to geographic location. Christians, particularly in rural areas, may face difficulty in obtaining justice through legal means. Despite the lack of any official policy of discrimination, Christians remain less likely than Moslems to be able to achieve senior positions in institutions such as the civil services, military, security services and universities.[42]

    Women in Egypt – Status/and violence against women

    [42] Ibid, see Country Report -17 February 2019, at p.21

12. The following is sources from the 2014 DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts (CIS27158):[43]

    [43] Ibid, see Country Report – 17 February 2019, see at p.29-31

13. Article 11 of the Egyptian Constitution commits the state to achieving equality between women and men, and to ensuring appropriate representation of women in national bodies. There are considerable legal protections for women in many areas, including on personal safety, participation in the workforce, and mandatory schooling for girls. The government’s National Strategy for the Empowerment of Egyptian Women (2017-2030) sets a number of concrete targets for political, economic, and social empowerment for 2030, including increasing the percentage of women in public posts from 5 percent to 17 percent; reducing the unemployment rate for women from 24 percent to 16 percent; and halving the maternal mortality rate (currently 33 women die from pregnancy related causes for every 100,000 live births, compared to 8.5 in Australia). The strategy also aims to eliminate sexual harassment and domestic violence entirely, and to improve Egypt’s ranking on the UN Gender Inequality Index to 88 of 159 selected countries from its 2017 position of 115.

14. Women participate in all areas of Egyptian society, including government, business, and civil society. However, societal, cultural, legislative, and religious barriers continue to place considerable limits on that participation. The implementation of constitutional protections can be unpredictable, and frequently dependent on the individual discretion of police, prosecutors, or judges. Human rights organisations have told DFAT that some judges, particularly in rural areas, allow their religious or cultural view of women to influence their findings. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the judiciary is almost entirely male – only 0.5 percent of judges are women. The accountability of police is also an issue, both in terms of their capacity to enforce laws preventing violence and harassment of women and as perpetrators of such acts. DFAT understands that police have targeted some women living alone (which is a social taboo in Egypt) for arrest or extortion under Law 10/1961 which prohibits prostitution.

15. Religiously based personal status laws tend to disadvantage both Christian and Moslem women. For example, while Muslim men can unilaterally divorce their wives without providing any justification, Muslim women must either forfeit their financial rights by accepting a ‘no-fault’ divorce or fight a long and costly court battle to prove their husband harmed them. Christian women married to Christian men are only able to access divorce if their husband converts to another religion or is unfaithful, which results in many women being unable to leave abusive relationships. Women are entitled to inherit only half as much as their male relatives. Laws related to adultery are far more severe for women than men. Women have fewer custodial rights than men. If a divorced woman with children decides to remarry, she loses custody of her children to the children’s father or his closest female kin, leading most divorced women to elect not to remarry. Abortion is criminalised in all cases. Women may not remove a child from Egypt without the specific permission of the father There have been considerable improvements on women’s representation in parliament in recent years, achieved through a quota system: Law 46/2014 stipulated the presence of 56 women on party lists, as well as 14 women appointed directly by the President.

1. Women make up 14.6 per cent of the current Parliament (compared to 2 per cent in 2012), there are eight women Ministers, a female National Security Advisor, and a woman Governor. The government has made progress in improving financial inclusion for women: formal account ownership among women more than tripled between 2011 and 2017, and the Central Bank is now collecting sex-disaggregated data. The government’s economic reform agenda, however, has had a disproportionate impact on women, who since 2014 have dropped out of the employment market in increasing numbers. The IMF-backed efforts to cut the public sector wage bill has had a particular impact, given the public sector provided the majority of formal employment for women. In-country sources have reported a considerable rise in women being forced into prostitution for economic reasons.

2. Rape, sexual harassment, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence are all strongly prevalent in Egypt. A 2017 survey by the Thomson Reuters Foundation found Cairo the world’s most dangerous megacity for women.

3. Article 267 of the Criminal Code makes rape a crime punishable by death. The legal definitions for rape and sexual assault are weak, however, and rape within marriage is not a crime. Women’s rights activists estimate that tens of thousands of incidents of rape occur annually, very few of which result in conviction. Human rights observers report that authorities generally treat allegations of rape and sexual assault as a ‘social nuisance’ rather than a crime to be prosecuted, and rarely make serious attempts to prosecute those responsible for sex crimes.

4. Sexual harassment is a frequent occurrence for women across the socio-economic spectrum. A 2013 UN Women study found 99.3 per cent of Egyptian women had experienced sexual harassment, while 91.5 per cent reported experiencing unwanted physical contact. The study found that most sexually assaulted women would not report the crime to the police or tell their families. Those who do make reports sometimes face retaliation from perpetrators or even their own families, who may blame them for provoking the assault or for bringing shame on the family. Sexual harassment was found to be particularly prevalent during mass street celebrations such as religious feasts, or political demonstrations. State officials and members of parliament have sometimes blamed victims of sexual violence because of their “revealing clothing”.   

5. Decree 50/2014 criminalised sexual harassment for the first time, providing for prison sentences of up to five years, and parliament imposed higher penalties for sexual harassment in December 2017, including fines of up to 10,000 Egyptian pounds (about $750 AUD). There have been some instances in which authorities have successfully prosecuted perpetrators of sexual harassment: nine men received lengthy prison sentences in July 2014 for participating in mob sexual assaults, and a man received a five-year sentence in April 2015 for sexually harassing a woman on public transport in Cairo. However, such prosecutions and sentences remain rare. Authorities have instead taken action against individuals and groups who have spoken out on the issue. For example, in May 2018 authorities arrested an activist who had posted a video on Facebook which spoke about the prevalence of sexual harassment and criticised the government’s failure to protect women. In September, a court sentenced the activist to two years’ imprisonment for publishing false news, and fined her EGP10,000 (AUD795) for making public insults. The activist continues to face charges in a separate case of belonging to a terrorist organisation. Human rights observers report that several other women’s’ rights groups and activists also face criminal charges in relation to their activism, with a number of activists subject to travel bans.

6. Domestic violence is prevalent and commonly accepted across religious communities and socio- economic levels: a 2017 UN Women survey of gender attitudes found that 90 per cent of Egyptian men and 71 per cent of women agreed with the statement that wives should tolerate violence to keep the family together. In-country sources report that domestic violence rates have risen in line with widespread frustration over economic austerity measures (see Economic Overview). Socio-economic factors can make it difficult for a woman to escape a violent relationship: attempting to do so in conservative or rural areas will usually result in communal and familial ostracism.

7. Very limited services are available for women seeking to escape domestic violence: only eight government-run shelters operate nationwide (in Cairo, Giza, Qalyubia, Alexandria, Beni Sueif, Fayoum and Minya). These shelters provide social, family, and psychological counselling, along with referrals to other service providers. According to human rights observers, the shelters focus primarily on reconciling women with their abusive husbands and tend to shelter women on a limited basis. The shelters are poorly resourced and advertised, and they apply rules and procedures that greatly limit their accessibility and utility to survivors of domestic violence. For example, unmarried women (including those perceived not to be virgins), those seeking divorce, and those with children are all precluded from accessing them. In-country sources report that attempts by civil society organisations to set up private shelters have been prevented by court orders or other legal proceedings against their activities.

8. There are no reliable statistics available regarding the incidence of killings and assaults motivated by ‘honour’ – these are not specifically addressed in the Criminal Code and are considered as any other crime. Several articles of the Criminal Code in effect condone the committing of such crimes, including Article 17, which provides for reduced sentences in light of mitigating circumstances; Article 60, which does the same for offences committed in good faith of a sharia right; and Article 237, which provides for reduced sentences when a husband surprises his wife in the act of adultery and kills her. Human rights observers report that the practice of honour killings is more common in rural areas, with some incidences officially categorised as suicides or accidents. 

9. Underage girls, particularly those from rural areas, are vulnerable to early or forced marriage. The government’s official statistics agency reported in 2017 that 118,904 girls in Egypt were under 18 when they married, and 18,127 were under the age of 16. The Ministry of Health has reported that 500,000 are born every year to underage mothers. Some early marriages are temporary arrangements designed to mask child prostitution, known colloquially as ‘tourism’ or ‘summer’ marriages. These ‘marriages’ involve wealthy foreign men (generally tourists from the Gulf States) purchasing young girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation, with the transaction often facilitated by the girl’s family.

10. The Ministry of Justice introduced measures in December 2015 to discourage such arrangements but refrained from eliminating the practice altogether. DFAT assesses that the majority of Egyptian women, regardless or religion or socio-economic status, face societal discrimination in that long-standing traditional values and gender roles continue to restrict their participation in the community and the workforce. DFAT assesses that the majority of Egyptian women face a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Activists who criticise government failures in relation to gender violence are likely to face arrest and prosecution in relation to their activism.

    REASONS FOR DECISION

11. It should be pointed out that the mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear or is “well-founded”. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists or that the harm feared amounts to “significant harm”. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. It is the responsibility of the applicant to specify all the particulars of the claim and to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish the claim. The Tribunal does not have the responsibility or obligation to specify or assist in establishing the claim. Nor is Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by the applicant: see, MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at [596], Nagalingam v MILGEA (!992) 38 FCR 191 and Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at [169-70].

    The applicant’s religion as a Coptic Orthodox Christian

12. The applicant’s claims may be characterised as claims relating to harm from a particular neighbour and his associates and claims more generally relating to her Christian religion and gender. In regard to her religion, the applicant claimed to be a practising Coptic Orthodox Christian. Although the applicant did not submit any evidence to support her membership with or her association with the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt or any involvement while here, in Australia, having considered her name in her passport, her written claims and her verbal responses to the Tribunal’s questions at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s claim of being a Coptic Orthodox Christian to be credible. Therefore, the Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant is a Coptic Orthodox Christian as she claimed.

    Incidents of harm, harassment, or discrimination due to the applicant’s religion and gender

    (a)The taxi-driver incident

13. The applicant told the Tribunal that one day she hailed in her local area a taxi for the purpose of visiting her sister which lived in another suburb. During the taxi trip, the applicant noticed that the taxi driver was not driving the applicant to her designated destination but out of the city suburbs towards a very remote area. The applicant made protests to the taxi driver, who return told her to ‘shut up’ and that ‘he was going to teach her a lesson.’ The applicant told the Tribunal that she started shouting at the taxi driver. Through her own efforts the applicant told the Tribunal that (when) the taxi stopped suddenly because of her shouting, the applicant managed to get herself out of the taxi and into the street. As a result of her attempt make herself free, she sustained injuries to her legs and shoulders.

14. The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – was the incident reported (the attempted sexual assault) to the local police? The Tribunal noted that applicant did not report this incident to the local police. The reason provided to the Tribunal was that the applicant did not do so because she had no confidence in the Egyptian police and in their dealing with such matters in particular, concerning, females who also were Coptic Orthodox in their faith. The taxi-driver incident was as a claim that caused the Tribunal some concerns. First, the applicant did not provide the Tribunal with a timeline of the incident. The Tribunal was told that the applicant hailed-down a taxi wanting to transport her to her sister’s home for a visit. No other details were submitted. Second, no other details were provided in the way in which the incident developed, except that that the applicant said that in the course of the trip, she was verbally abused by the taxi driver because she was a female and Coptic Christian and the applicant in some way (which was not fully made evident to the Tribunal in how it was described) owing to her own prowess she managed though injured, in the process, (on a major highway) to escape a taxi-driver who, the Tribunal was told intended to sexually assault her. Though the details of this attempted sexual assault are limited the circumstances as recounted by the applicant when considered in light of the available country information, the Tribunal does not doubt in total what happened to the applicant even though the details are minimal. An attempt of sexual assault would (especially on a woman as in this case) would be so disturbing an incident that one (as the in the applicant’s case) would have with tried to place it in the back of one’s mind though the fear of the experience would certainly endure and remain.

15. The country information referenced by the Tribunal (at paragraphs [82] to [90]) describe the situation in Egypt (for women) as a place where rape, sexual harassment, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence are strongly prevalent. More on point and relevant to the applicant’s circumstances, a  2017 survey by Thomson Reuters Foundation found that Cairo was the world’s most dangerous megacity for women. Also, though Article 267 of the Criminal Code makes rape punishable by death, the legal definitions for rape and sexual assault are considered ‘weak’. Women’s rights activists estimate that tens of thousands of incidents of rape occur annually, very few of which result in the criminal being found and if found, may not be convicted. Human rights observers report that authorities generally treat allegations of rape and sexual assault as a ‘social nuisance’ rather than a crime to be prosecuted, and rarely make serious attempts to prosecute those responsible for sex crimes. Moreover, despite the fact that the Ministry of Justice is reported to have introduced in December 2015, measures designed to protect girls and women in general (see paragraphs (88) and (89)) it has refrained from eliminating issues relating to women altogether. DFAT’s assessment for women (in general) in Egypt, regardless of religion or socio-economic status they face societal discrimination in that long-standing traditional values and gender roles continue to restrict their participation in the community and workforce. DFAT further assesses that a majority of Egyptian women face a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence.

16. In considering the applicant’s concerns as a woman in Egypt and adding to her situation the fact that she is an educated Christian woman (with liberal attitudes) and without a ‘male protector’ – be it – a father, brother or husband, the Tribunal concludes and finds that the applicant would be exposed at some time in her life, if she was to return to Egypt to such concerns of sexual assault and even attempted rape or rape if one accepts as the Tribunal does – the country information assessments. In particular, the Tribunal is cognizant of the that part of the information referenced above, where it describes the authorities as very disinterested in such issues concerning and affecting the general female population of Egypt. What is more disturbing in the Tribunal’s opinion, with regards to this incident as the applicant described it, is the fact that incidents of rape and sexual assault while occurring in Egypt at increasing rates, the State, has difficulties in enforcing with real effect – the law providing women with durable and effective protection instead of allowing women and young girls to feel vulnerable and exposed to male predators as was the case with the applicant as she described her circumstances to the Tribunal. The applicant’s reluctance to engage with the Egyptian police authorities comes as no surprise to the Tribunal having read the available country information on the plight of women in today’s Egypt.

    (b)the applicant’s claim that as a Coptic Orthodox Christian woman she was discriminated at her work  

17. The applicant told the Tribunal that her religion and gender caused her to suffer discrimination in her employment. The applicant claimed both to the Department and in her statutory declaration, that since she graduated from university in 200, she was employed by various organisations and [institutions] in Egypt. The applicant’s employment with [Employer 1] occurred in December 2011. The applicant’s employment with [Employer 1] was terminated a month later when the applicant was still undergoing her training, because the [employer] decided to cease operating its commercial outlets in Egypt due to the political unrest at that time. The applicant is an educated Coptic Orthodox Christian woman.

18. The applicant’s evidence shows that that despite any amount of discrimination she may have encountered (which would have been the case, the country information reports this) within the Egyptian education system, she managed by her own efforts and her application to years’ of study to successfully complete her studies at university. Having completed her education, the applicant based on her evidence before the Tribunal, was able to successfully engage in a worthwhile employment opportunity with a branch of [Employer 1] despite her being a female and a Christian.

19. However, her employment’s termination and her subsequent unemployment was due to circumstances beyond her actual control. The political situation dramatically changed in Egypt. The applicant’s employer then decided to scale down their operations in Egypt. As a result of this, the applicant lost her employment. The evidence does not support the claim that her employment ceasing was caused primarily for the reason that she was Coptic Christian and a woman. On the applicant’s own admission, her employment was terminated because of the general political instability which had engulfed all of Egypt and had affected most of the Egyptian population – that was the situation in 2011, not because of her religion or her religious beliefs. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes and finds that the applicant though may have experienced or had been exposed to some elements of discrimination because she was Coptic Orthodox Christian in her education, she nevertheless completed her education with success and was employed without any issue involving her gender or religion. Furthermore, the Tribunal concludes and finds that the applicant (on the evidence before the Tribunal) did not have her employment with [Employer 1] terminated for the primary reason she was a Coptic Orthodox Christian but was caused by her employer making the decision to scale back their commercial operations in Egypt due to the then (in 2011) political instability caused by the revolution.

    (c)the marriage proposal from the applicant’s neighbour and his claimed Salafist background

100.   The applicant told the Tribunal that sometime in 2011 (at the end of May 2011) one of her family’s neighbours approached the applicant’s mother to ask her mother for the applicant’s hand in marriage for her son – [Mr A]. The applicant told the Tribunal that the two families had been neighbours for over a decade and that the applicant attended the same university as [Mr A]. The applicant told the Tribunal that [Mr A]’s mother considered the applicant to be a ‘good match’ for her son and promised the applicant’s mother, that the applicant would (if she wished) maintained her religion after the two were married. The applicant told the Tribunal that the marriage proposal was declined by her mother and the applicant because she, ‘had no intention of marrying a non-Christian’ and had ‘no romantic feelings’ towards [Mr A]. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain – why would a Muslim want to marry a Christian woman and agreed to marry her without her religion being changed? The applicant told the Tribunal that the prospective groom’s family had no issue with her religion. Thereafter, following the refusal of the marriage proposal, the applicant noticed that ‘Salafists began to come and go from the neighbour’s house…’ The applicant went on to say, ‘they would gather there (at the neighbour’s house) for prayers…’ The applicant described ‘[Mr A]’ to the Tribunal – when asked, as ‘the neighbour’s son’s appearance had changed …he had a beard without [a] moustache – as Salafists have and he dressed like a Salafist …’ The Tribunal asked the applicant – what did she consider [Mr A] was? The applicant’s response was  to describe [Mr A] as ‘a Salafist…100%...’

101.   The Tribunal asked the applicant – how did she arrive at these conclusions? The applicant told the Tribunal ‘…by his appearance and not only his appearance…[but] by the people who visited him…’ The applicant described these visitors to her neighbour’s house as being ‘VIPs’. Their VIP status was determined by the applicant by telling the Tribunal that the ‘numbers on their vehicles’. According to the applicant’s evidence, ‘numberplates which commenced with the numbers ‘2’ and ‘3’ these persons were ‘VIPs’. The applicant also told the Tribunal that some time later, ‘friends of [Mr A]’ would stop her in the street and intimidate her and threaten her if she did not marry [Mr A] as had been suggested to her. The threats and intimidation continued to the point that the applicant had no choice but to leave Egypt.

102.   The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it and in particular, the claim that the applicant made that the marriage proposal was from a neighbour who was a Muslim and a Salafist member or sympathiser, The Tribunal is prepared to accept that there may have been a proposal of marriage which did not materialise and as a result of wounded pride – two families were thrown into some sort of severe acrimony. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s comments that [Mr A] -the proposed ‘groom’ was a ‘Salafist’. The applicant stated this because she knew this was in fact the reality because of [Mr A]’s appearance and from the visitors that attended his home on occasion. Whether these ‘visitors’ were ‘VIPs’ as the applicant claimed them to be, the Tribunal does not know whether this is correct and has no means to conclusively determine this if this was the case. What the Tribunal can state with some certainty is that the Egypt of 2011 was in social and political turmoil and the breakdown of civil society exposed certain elements of the Egyptian community, especially, the minorities (for example, Coptic Orthodox Christians) to extreme elements of politics and religion. The applicant’s neighbour may not have been a ‘Salafist’ as the applicant claimed because there is no evidence to support this. In fact, the Tribunal only has considered the evidence provided by the applicant which was that her neighbour was a Salafist – 100% and that was based not on actual knowledge but the applicant’s opinion and her description of his dress and appearance. This evidence is very unclear and speculative, in the Tribunal’s opinion. The applicant’s neighbour may not have been a ‘Salafist’ as was claimed but he may have been a Muslim who had been caught up in the political and religious turmoil of the time and he and his friends (who visited him as the applicant claimed) and later watched her, could have been influenced by these events causing the applicant to fear for her life, after she and her mother had rejected her neighbour’s family’s marriage proposal.

103.   The country information referred to by the Tribunal previously in this decision indicates (see paragraph [88] et.al) that there are no reliable statistics available regarding the incidence of killings and assaults motivated by ‘honour’ and that these are not specifically addressed in the Egyptian Criminal Code and are considered as any other crime. There are also reports of incidents of forced marriages (see paragraph [88]). As indicated earlier in this decision by the Tribunal, the situation of women Christian or Muslim is very difficult in Egypt in particular, which has the very low record for protecting women’s rights.

104.   The applicant may not have been targeted by a Salafist extremist in the opinion of the Tribunal as she described her neighbour – [Mr A], - the evidence does not suggest this as it was presented but he was a Muslim from the evidence submitted who may have been influenced at that time by the extremism which had prevailed in Egypt and he may have felt personally angered that his intentions having been rejected by the applicant – a woman, a Coptic Christian, an educated woman and a woman that displayed an independence of mind which would have influenced him to intimidate the applicant as a result of her refusal to marry him and to have his friends trying to intimidate and even threaten her in public. From the evidence as the Tribunal considers it, the applicant lived in an environment of threats and intimidation and unable to provide for herself (within her family) or generally, from the local authorities, protection against such attacks on her freedoms to live her life and to move anywhere (within her local neighbourhoods) as she wished.

105.   Generally, the applicant was of the belief, that the local Egyptian police will be on the Muslim side if she reported and ‘incident’ to them and that the authorities will do little or nothing for her by way of providing some assistance or protection. Having considered the evidence before the Tribunal and whilst the Tribunal concedes that the applicant justifiably may regard the Egyptian police as biased, unjust and even corrupt, the fact remains that the applicant did not make the approach to the authorities in order to justify her hesitations as far as it concerned their unwillingness to engage with a woman that was a Christian had faced threats and intimidation. Therefore, in the Tribunal’s opinion there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the applicant would in a given situation refuse or choose to do nothing when a request for assistance is made by a woman in the applicant’s position.

106.   Overall, according to DFAT’s own assessment od the current situation in Egypt, as far as it concerns the wellbeing of Orthodox Christians (Coptic Christians) is that they face moderate risk of discrimination that is more likely to be societal than official in nature; and is likely to vary considerably according to geographic location.[44] The applicant had lived in Egypt most of her life. Indeed, it was of interest to the Tribunal the fact, that the applicant despite her Christian religion and beliefs, had achieved a significant level of education. More particularly, despite some different treatment she would have experienced within society generally because of her Coptic Orthodox Christian background, the applicant provided very little information to the Tribunal which suggested that she had experienced discrimination or different treatment in employment which limited her personal ambitions or livelihood. In the period the applicant lived with her family (while her father was alive) her existence was not (from the evidence before the Tribunal) in any way problematic. The applicant had achieved her position in life without any major state interference or state imposed hinderances because of her religion or religious beliefs – being a Coptic Orthodox Christian. More to the point, the applicant had no issues with the Egyptian authorities causing her issues whether upon leaving that country or upon her return as far as it involved her religion or religious beliefs. That being the case, the applicant in her evidence before the Tribunal and in her submissions did not specifically identify a well-founded fear of persecution because of her religion – being a Coptic Orthodox Christian or for her being a follower of her religion’s religious doctrine as is provided for and defined by s. 5J(1)(a)(b) or (c) of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal does not find the applicant is a ‘refugee’.

[44] see., Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 17 June 2019, Country Information Report – Egypt, in particular, paragraph [3.36] and preceding paragraphs [3.31] to [3.4].

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

CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMASTION UNDER s. 438 of the Migration Act 1958.

108.   The Tribunal notes that on 5 May 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s representative, [Mr C], [Law Firm 1] notifying him that:

(a)  On 7 January 2013, the Tribunal received information about the applicant from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (now responsibility for this file is now with the Department of Home Affairs).

(b) The Department provided a Certificate issued pursuant to s. 438 of the Act.

(c)   The Certificate indicates that certain information about the applicant was provided to the Department.

(d)  In the Certificate, the Delegate certified that the disclosure of this material would be contrary to the public interest because it may disclose or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of a confidential source of information.

(e)  The Certificate is signed by [name] for [name], the Delegate for the Minister and Secretary of the Department for Home Affairs.

109.   The Tribunal sought comment from [Mr C], Solicitor/Migration Agent for the applicant about the Tribunal’s proposed decision that the Certificate is valid but that the information to which the Certificate applied was not relevant to the applicant’s review because the information was not relevant to the applicant’s claim for protection. The applicant’s solicitor, [Mr C] was asked to provide a submission on behalf of his client, the applicant.

110.   On 12 May 2022, [Mr C], solicitor provided the following response on the applicant’s behalf:

We refer to correspondence received on 5 May 2022 referring to a certificate on the Department file ‘placing restrictions some of the material given to the Tribunal by the Department under s.438 of the Act’ and requesting submissions in relation to the validity of that certificate.

We note that the certificate does state that the information was given to the Department officer in confidence, and so based on this information would seem to satisfy s.438(1)(b).

However, we submit that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to release the material as the Applicant has instructed that she strongly believes the information to have been provided by her brother-in-law and was motivated by personal animosity against the Applicant. Given the Applicant may be aware of the identity of the individual who disclosed the information, it would seem that its release would not be likely to have a detrimental effect on that individual if this belief was simply confirmed.

In the alternative, we submit that if the information does relate to ‘dob in’ information put forward by the Applicant’s brother-in-law, it should not be given any weight by the Tribunal as it was almost certainly motivated by personal issues and is not evidence that is able to be tested by the Tribunal.

If the information was not provided by the brother-in-law, and it is considered in any way material to the Tribunal’s assessment, we submit it should be disclosed to ensure the Applicant is provided with an opportunity to respond to its contents.

111.   Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the certificate is valid but that the information to which the certificate applies is not relevant to the applicant’s review because the information is not relevant to the applicant’s claims.

112.   The applicant, the Tribunal noted, did make reference to her falling out with her brother-in-law while here in Australia during the hearing as [Mr C] noted in his letter of 12 May 2022, information that was spontaneously provided by the applicant. Having said that, the Tribunal came to its conclusions in this matter on its examination of the applicant at the hearing and on her subsequent submissions not on any issues claimed by others.

COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION

113.   The issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant is entitled to complementary protection.

114.   The Tribunal considers whether there are grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, Egypt, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.

115.   Significant harm will occur if:

§the person will b e arbitrarily deprived of their life; or

§the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or

§the person will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

§the person will be subject to degrading treatment or punishment.

116.   However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a person will suffer significant harm in another (in this case, Egypt) if:

§It would be reasonable for the person to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that they will suffer significant harm; or

§The person could obtain, from the authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm; or

§The real risk is one forced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the person personally.

117.   The Tribunal finds that the applicant, if she was to return to Egypt in the reasonably foreseeable future will fall victim to either being arbitrarily deprived of her life, subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment committed upon her by persons in her local community who prey on women and in particular, unmarried women that have no male guardian for support.

118.   The Tribunal was told that the applicant was, if she was returned to Egypt, on  her own and without a male ‘guardian’. The applicant would find herself alone and without anyone to call upon in times of need or in a sudden crisis. The situation is compounded by the fact that the applicant has lived in Egypt during times of severe political and societal upheaval which in the Tribunal’s opinion have etched themselves on the applicant’s mind and the Tribunal was well aware, when it discussed the possibility of the applicant returning to Egypt at some point in the future – if she could. The applicant noted the applicant’s response to a possibility of return to Egypt in the future, as being listened to with an expression of concern and foreboding on her face. The applicant told the Tribunal that she could no longer feel safe and secure in a country that was totally ignoring the plight of women and their rights (whether Christian or Muslim) and which would not provide the proper protections to vulnerable women when vilified and assaulted in public by Egyptian males and in particular, in her situation being a female, educated, a known Coptic Christian (in her home area) without a ‘male guardian’. The Tribunal also has in mind the applicant’s present situation while here in Australia. The applicant, the Tribunal was told, has been in a long-term relationship with her partner, [Mr D]. The relationship remains serious and the two have become interdependent on each other. For the applicant, her partner provides her with companionship and the certainty of having a ‘male guardian’. That being the case, the applicant’s partner is ‘not able to travel with the applicant to Egypt’ if that was required. The Tribunal was told in a medical opinion provided by [Dr E], that [Mr D] ‘has a complex medical history [details specified].’[45] The Tribunal also has read and considered, the applicant’s partner’s statutory declaration dated 20 April 2022 where his reasons for his long-term inability to travel with the applicant (if required) are made clear[46] and the Tribunal accepts that his medical conditions (which are on-going and subject to medical monitoring) prevent him being (as the applicant would have desired) her male guardian in Egypt.

[45] see, Applicant’s further written submissions dated, 28 April 2022 at p. 4, see AAT File.

[46] Ibid, see AAT File.

119.   Having in mind the applicant’s present situation, which is, that she is a Coptic Orthodox Christian woman, well educated and with no male guardian, the Tribunal is cognizant of the information provided and referenced (by the Tribunal) concerning the treatment of women in Egypt. DFAT’s thematic report on Egyptian Copts in 2014 highlights that women can face harassment and discrimination because they are identified as Copts – amounting to high levels of discrimination against all women in Egypt.[47] Egypt was regarded as the “worst for women” in the Arab world, subjecting women to everyday harassment.[48] Further women in Egypt, and especially single women, with no support network, are the most vulnerable and face destitution and maltreatment if they are not provided with continued assistance.[49] Copts, the Tribunal was told, are targeted and marginalised by unjust authorities all across Egypt as has been reported by a number of news outlets in recent times.[50] In particular, the Tribunal noted that approximately 99 percent of Christian women in Egypt have been subjected to harassment irrespective of their age.[51]As such, it is very likely, as the applicant’s legal counsel submitted, that the applicant will face harassment (at some time) if she was to return to Egypt and the cause of this was her religion which is exacerbated by her having (in Egypt) the lack of male companionship or guardianship.[52]

[47] Home Office, “Country Information and Guidance – Egypt Christians” see at p.20 (30 June 2014) citing Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report, see paragraphs 3.39 and 3.46, (January 28, 2014)

[48] BBC News, “Egypt ‘worst for women’ out of 22 countries in the Arab world” (12 November 2013).

[49] [49] Home Office, “Country Information and Guidance – Egypt Christians” see at p.20 (30 June 2014) citing Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Thematic Report, see paragraphs 3.39 and 3.46, (January 28, 2014)

[50]

[51] Annette Langer, ‘Women in Egypt: Harassed, Mutilated and Disenfranchised’ see, AAT File, Applicant’s legal counsel’s written submission at p.4

120.   The applicant still fears the situation in Egypt. The applicant believed that the way Christians had been treated in the recent past will return despite the strong determination of the Sisi government. The applicant lives with an ongoing fear of sectarian violence returning to Egypt and is particularly fearful of experiencing that and personal attacks on her person because of her gender. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s comments to it saying that her experiences in Australia were very different and better than what had been the case in Egypt. The applicant told the Tribunal that though she has issues with her partner’s health which continue, she has found work and has found a relative peaceful co-existence within the Victorian community – a peaceful certainty she would not have nor experience in Egypt. For the applicant a return to Egypt as a female with some protection from a male guardian would cause her to face the issue, she had faced prior to leaving Egypt. In particular, the applicant believes that the issue with [Mr A] has not gone away despite the passage of time and returning to her neighbourhood if that were to be the case would only subject her harm. In light of the information reviewed by the Tribunal and the country information which described the situation in particular, of women (regardless of whether they are Muslim or as in the applicant’s case, Christian) the idea of returning alone to Egypt even though Egypt was stable (for the time being), the past is still current in this woman’s mind and being on her own and alone to fend for herself without the certainty of male protection (and the absence of a serious disposition on the part of the authorities to protect vulnerable single women) is significant harm in the opinion of the Tribunal.

121.   The Tribunal gives consideration to whether there is cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment by elements in Egyptian society (at large) which would elevate the vulnerability of this woman who has no male protector or guardian to provide her with support and protection. The applicant’s past experiences on the streets of Cairo, where she was assaulted by a taxi driver and later harassed by friends of her Muslim neighbour after she refused his family marriage proposal and her general feeling of unease as she experience during the revolution in 2011 when she was unable to continue with her employment with [Employer 1] – all created harm against the applicant for the reason that she was an educated, single, self-employed Coptic Orthodox Christian woman with no male guardian, alone in a community in which women who have no male guardian for support fall easy victim to predators who are either infused with religious fanaticism, criminal enterprise or gender hate. The applicant in this case is such a person.

122.   Cruel or inhuman treatment means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted so long, as in the circumstance, the act or omission could reasonable be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature.

123.   It is clear that the applicant will be treated differently from other Egyptian citizens because of her religion, her gender and her particular circumstances. The applicant has no confidence in the authorities in Egypt and in particular – the police. The authorities were considered by her as being of no real assistance to her for the crime of sexual assault. The country information referenced in this decision, does indicate that if the applicant returns to Egypt now or later, she returns as a vulnerable woman without a male protector. The applicant would be on her own. The applicant told the Tribunal that she had no influence in order to guarantee some kind of assistance or protection for her. The applicant would be on her own to face the challenges – her partner unable to be with her in Egypt because of his issues with his health.    

124.   The country information available on Egypt makes it clear that justice for women in Egypt does exist but it is subjected to preference, prejudice and a general lack of concern for women, especially for a woman that is with strong family support and with a male guardian. If the applicant had certain issues and required to access on her own the existing justice system, it would be difficult and would make the applicant open to be abused and ignored whichever is the case. It is very likely that her person would be exposed to a series of threats in her community and in society in general she would have to live with without the security of her partner. In such circumstances, this would amount to inhuman treatment or punishment, where acts or omissions by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally caused on the applicant.

125.   In this, the Tribunal gives mind to the fact that applicant’s counsel in his written submissions displayed evidence that women in Egypt in the applicant’s circumstances are extremely vulnerable if on their own and without the support of male guardian or a network of strong family support. The applicant, it was drawn to the Tribunal’s attention has no strong family network in Egypt – she has no head of the family who is male (no father or brother). In reality, the applicant will be returning (without any support) to begin (in Egypt) completely on her own without a male protector.

126.   The cumulative effects of these problems leads the Tribunal to conclude that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt – the receiving country – there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm: see – s.36 (2)(aa) of the Act.

127.   Significant harm for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36A(2) and s.5(1) of the Act. It includes a situation where a person will suffer significant harm if she or he will be subjected to inhumane treatment. The Tribunal finds that these provisions apply here. The type of cruelty, harm and criminality, described above would be intentional and aimed at the applicant should it occur. It is sufficiently relevant in Egypt to pose a real risk and the risk is exacerbated by the lack of personal resources and societal influence, position, and funds. The applicant’s situation is further exacerbated and made difficult by the fact that lack of a strong family support structure (father is deceased and no males in the family) and lack of societal influence (being an educated Coptic woman which is not married and with no male guardian) in a society which preys on such vulnerability makes her a person who would suffer severe pain and suffering. Serious assaults including grievous bodily harm are another possibility. The applicant might well – in a personal sense – be vulnerable to some or all of these threats, and there is a real risk she will suffer significant harm. The risk as acknowledged by the Tribunal exists in all the various areas of Egypt and because of the applicant sexual assault issues in the past and her issues with her Muslim neighbour she refused to marry and the general indifference of the authorities to protect her at a given moment being without a male guardian – a single, educated, Coptic Christian woman with no male guardian in a predominately Muslim society, the applicant could not obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such as that there would not be a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm. The real risk one faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal also does not find that there is any possibility of avoiding the harm described by depending on any other state or private institution or institutions in a system as it currently operates in Egypt. Institutions may exist but poorly resourced to make a significant difference.

128. For the reasons above, the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicant satisfies the complementary protection criteria as set out in s. 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

DECISION

129. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

Peter Vlahos
Member

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.

…

https:/ (2014) 14072REV2EN.pdf
Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044