1811003 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, an Egyptian national, claimed to fear persecution in Egypt due to his religious beliefs, specifically his adherence to the Qur'an while rejecting the Sunnah and ahadith, which he believed would lead to him being labelled an infidel and facing imprisonment or death. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's migration history, including multiple returns to Egypt between 2007 and 2016, and his protection visa application lodged in April 2016.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his religious beliefs and the associated risk of persecution in Egypt, as well as considering the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, or if there were substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Egypt.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his religious claims to lack credibility. It noted inconsistencies in his account, including a discrepancy concerning his description of his father-in-law's views on his daughter's circumcision. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a reliable, credible, or truthful witness and that he had fabricated his claims to obtain a protection visa. The Tribunal reasoned that Islam is an interpretive religion with diverse schools of thought regarding the Sunnah, and it did not accept the applicant's assertion that his specific interpretation would inevitably lead to persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's migration history and the delay in seeking protection.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.