1727997 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Sunni Muslim from Egypt, sought review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm due to his daughter's conversion to Quranism, which he alleged had led to his imputed political opinion hostile to the Egyptian government, stemming from his son's political activities. He also asserted membership in a particular social group, defined as a Sunni Muslim whose child has converted to another religion, and noted he had no family remaining in Egypt, facing economic hardship. The decision under review was made by the Minister, and the application for review was heard by Jason Pennell.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he held an imputed political opinion or belonged to a particular social group. The court was required to assess the applicant's claims regarding his imputed political opinion, linked to his son's political activities and his daughter's religious conversion, and his claimed membership in a particular social group, considering the familial context of his daughter's conversion and his lack of remaining family in Egypt.

The court found that the applicant's imputed political opinion was not well-founded, as the evidence did not establish a real chance that the Egyptian authorities would attribute to him a political opinion hostile to the government based on his son's activities. However, the court determined that the applicant did belong to a particular social group, defined as a Sunni Muslim whose child has converted to Quranism, and that he had a well-founded fear of harm from his daughter's husband's family on account of his membership in this group. The court also considered the applicant's lack of family support in Egypt and his economic hardship as relevant factors.

Consequently, the court remitted the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for redetermination.