1814454 (Refugee) - [2022] AATA 707

1814454 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 707 (8 February 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1814454
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Egypt
MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan
DATE:8 February 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 08 February 2022 at 10:03am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – Christian woman kidnapped by Muslim man and forced to change religion and marry him – drugged and beaten, and miscarriages – escape, divorce and threats – fear of harm from ex-husband and Muslim group – credibility – inconsistent claims and evidence – records indicate voluntary conversion – extensive travel to multiple countries without applying for protection, and voluntary returns – delay in leaving after receiving Australian visa – late claims of workplace discrimination and that sister was targeted because of her – adverse inference – recent marriage to Australian citizen – country information – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65, 424AA, 423A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASE
R v NK [2016] NSWSC 498
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 1 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, applied for the visa on 22 January 2018.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 December 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Mr A] and [Mr B]. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Standard) and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Protection visa application
The applicant made the following statement of claims as part of her protection visa application:
a.Why did you leave Egypt ?: I was kidnapped and raped by a Muslim man in Egypt in January 2007 named [Mr C], who forced me to change my religion from Christian to Muslim and marry him as he was threatening me that he will kill me and my family if I did not listen to him. He took me to [Location] and forced me to change my religion. He was beating me and I had to make two surgeries of miscarriage where I was about to die during. I managed to escape from him after three years and went to church and they helped me to become Christian again;
b.What do you think will happen to you if you return to Egypt ? I am threatened to be killed by him and the Muslim Brotherhood because I managed to come back to my original religion which is Christianity. I tried to change my home address and my job more than one time during the past years but they managed to reach me and send me threaten messages through different messengers;
c.Did you experience harm in Egypt ? My ex-husband was beating and hitting me daily and threatening me that he will kill me and my family if I did not listen to him. I had to do many surgeries and I was not allowed to work or to go out of the house without him. He forced me to make Muslim prayers and when I refused he hit me badly;
d.Did you seek help in Egypt ? Because he did not give me the chance and Egypt is a Muslim country, a lot of Christian people are being killed and nobody in the government doing or helping Christians. Most of police officers are Muslims and were my ex-husband’s friends and helped him in what happened to me; and
e.Did you move to another part of the country ? I changed my home address and my work address more than one time to escape from the threatening but unfortunately he knew my new address and started to threaten me again.
The applicant provided a four-page statutory declaration on 5 April 2019 that essentially claimed to fear serious harm because of the following reasons:
a.Actual/perceived faith as a Coptic Christian; and
b.Membership of a particular social group (PSG), comprising:
i.Divorced single women in Egypt;
ii.Women in Egypt who are victims of domestic violence; and/or
iii.Such other PSG as the Department considers applies.
She also provided another statement on 20 December 2021 that updated some details such as her becoming engaged with a marriage date of 15 January 2022. She claimed her partner had no right to enter Egypt and she would return alone. She also claimed that returning as a married woman would see her at greater risk because her ex-husband would be even more angered were he to find out she had re-married.
AAT Hearing
The applicant’s documents that she had provided were noted and she was told that she had provided a copy of a document saying that her sister had been granted protection in [Country 1] but the Tribunal had asked for a copy of her actual claim/decision so the Tribunal needed a copy of the source document before it could provide it with any weight.
The applicant claimed that if she returned to Egypt she would be kidnapped and killed by her ex-husband and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) because she had converted back to Christianity and he believed she was still his wife as she got her divorce without his approval. She also claimed that she didn’t feel secure in Egypt because she had been harassed since she was 12. Men will touch her body and do things to her. Men would do this to women because men sexually harassed women in Egypt, particularly Christian, single, divorced women. She would not convert back to Islam and she would not be forced to wear the hijab.
The MB may also kill her for her Christian faith given she had converted back to Christianity. She also had no house or job in Egypt because she had left it in 2017. She had no source of income. Asked if she was qualified, she said she had a Bachelor of [Subject]. It was put to her that many people left their job when they left their country and had to get a new one when they returned. She said that she would have to deal with authorities if she got a new house and job and with her ex-husband’s connections he would find out where she lived and worked. She agreed that her ex-husband was the source of her fear, along with the non-Christian population of Egypt.
Regarding her husband, he was a [Products] dealer. Asked if he sold [Product type 1] or [Product type 2], she said she didn’t know. She knew he did this because she had overheard him talking about this. Asked who he sold [Products] to, she said it was the MB. She also claimed that he laundered money because she had heard her husband talking about transferring money to different accounts. Asked how she knew it was money laundering, she said that he said in Egyptian he was saying they had to make sure it came from an innocent source.
On 5 January 2007 she was returning from work and something sounded wrong with her car so she stopped and had a flat tyre. A man came and offered to help her – there were two other people in the car. He then sprayed something in her face and then some time later she found herself in a place she didn’t know. She was sore and he (her ex-husband) was beating her and told her that he had kidnapped her because she was Christian. He told her that she had to convert to Islam because he had taken a video of her being raped by him and he would put it on the internet if she didn’t convert. He also threatened to kill her family if she didn’t listen to him.
This happened in Cairo, in Nasr City. He forced her to go to [Location] to change her religion and name, then brought two witnesses to have a marriage at his home. She spent three years with him until she managed to escape. During that time she lived in Nasr City with him. Prior to that she had lived in Subra with her [brothers], [sisters] and mother. When she disappeared, her family had made a report of her as a missing person and the police told them to make the report after 48 hours. Asked if she had a copy of the report, she said that she didn’t.
She was continually beaten for three years and she was drugged by him. She also had some miscarriages. Asked if the police looked for her, she said that her ex-husband told her to call her family after a month and a half that she got married and they shouldn’t look for her. She didn’t tell them who she married or where they lived. It was put to her that this would have made her family even more worried. She said that she was told to call them and tell them not to look for her or else he would kill her family. It was put to her that this didn’t appear to make sense given that nobody knew anything of her fate after her kidnapping and she was just a missing person.
Yet a call from their daughter six weeks after disappearing from work, saying she was married and telling them not to try to find her would have made them even more concerned and they could have called the police who could have done an investigation and found out what number she had called from, or re-traced her steps from the time she left work in her car. It didn’t make sense that her husband wanted the case to be closed and yet he would raise her profile. She claimed that her family was not powerful and her mother was sick. She was asked if her family then went to the Coptic church (which was powerful) and were concerned about Christian women being kidnapped by Muslim men, and seek their help to track her down. She said that she didn’t know if they went to the church.
Asked how she escaped, she claimed that she found some sleeping pills at home that were the same type used by her mother. She put some in his meal one night and she left the house while he slept. This was in March 2010 – she went to a church and the priest then helped her find a shelter and a lawyer to convert back to Christianity. This took about a year.
She got the divorce through the church lawyer using the khula’ system. Asked if she had a court document she said that she had given it, and she was told that it was just the divorce certificate – the Tribunal told her that country information indicated that a khula’ divorce required a court appearance so there would be court documents as well as the certificate. She said that she didn’t know if he contested the divorce. Her certificate didn’t say who initiated the divorce or what the grounds were or that she had given up the dowry. She said that her lawyer may have documents. It was put to her that she may have converted to marry her husband, they divorced normally and she re-converted. It was put to her that she had a long time to provide the court documents but they could assist in giving weight to her account if she could provide them.
Asked what happened to her between 2011 and coming to Australia in 2017 that made her think she was at harm. She said that he found out where she lived and he sent a sheikh to threaten her and her sister and husband to convert to Islam or he would deform her face and kidnap her sister’s children. She told the sheikh she agreed to re-convert and go back to her husband and then she ran away after giving him the false promise. She then went to Rahab (in New Cairo). She was rejected for an Australian visa in 2013 because she was told that Egyptians weren’t returning to Australia. She didn’t appeal that decision. She didn’t know anyone here and that was why she wanted to come here so she could apply for protection.
Asked if she travelled anywhere else in 2013, she said she thought she did. It was put to her that she went to [Country 2], [Country 1] and [Country 3] that year but never applied for protection. It was put to her that she claimed she wanted to come to Australia in 2013 to apply for protection but then went to three asylum-granting countries to apply for protection but never did. This raised obvious concerns as to the truthfulness of her claim.
She said that she believed her ex-husband had connections who could reach her in [Country 1] and Europe but not Australia. It was put to her that this was strange and she disagreed as she said she had never mentioned Australia when they were married. It was put to her that she had also travelled to [Country 4] in 2012, [Countries 5 and 6] in 2011, [Country 7] in 2015 and [Country 1] in 2013, 2014 and 2016. Her inability to apply for protection in any of these countries also raised concerns as to the genuineness of her claims. She claimed that after her Australian visa was refused, her doctor and psychologist advised her to start over again and face what happened to her. It was put to her that she still travelled. She claimed that she was so stressed and it was put to her that she spent several months away on each trip.
It was put to her that she claimed that her husband could find her in any of these countries and yet she continually travelled into and out of Cairo on her own passport without any problems. It was strange that her husband couldn’t be well-connected if he could track her down around the world but didn’t know if she was coming into or coming out of Cairo airport. Morsi was president from June 2012 until July 2013 and she travelled through the airport during that period. She claimed that her husband was close with the MB and Morsi represented the MB so it was again strange that she could come and go so easily through the airport.
She said her ex-husband had power to reach her and if he had the chance to do it she would. She didn’t have problems with the authorities, not her husband. It was put to her again that she claimed he was influential in Europe and [Country 1] yet he was unaware of when she entered and left Egypt through the airport. This didn’t say much about his level of influence or his reach. She said she had no explanation for this.
It was put to her that once Morsi came to power she must have been frightened and yet she travelled to some European countries while the MB was in power and yet never applied for protection which raised further questions about her fear of harm. She said that she wanted to start her life again and wanted to start this in Egypt. She didn’t want to cause her sister more problems when she visited her in [Country 1] because her husband already blamed her for his family moving to [Country 1]. She also said there were too many guns and states in [Country 1] so she didn’t feel safe and she only felt safe in Australia.
Morsi was overthrown in July 2013 and, given she knew her ex-husband was supplying arms to the MB this would have been a good time to report her ex-husband to the authorities for selling weapons to the MB. She was asked if she reported him to the Egyptian authorities (or to the Australian authorities subsequently) and she claimed that Egypt was still corrupt and there were MB everywhere so she couldn’t speak up as she was in fear of her life. She hadn’t mentioned this to Australian authorities. It was put to her that when she made a claim but never followed it up with action it raised questions in the Tribunal’s mind as to its truthfulness.
She received her Australian visa in August 2017 and left Egypt [in] December. Asked why she waited four months to leave Egypt, she claimed that she was planning on coming for a holiday and had no intention to apply for protection. She only left when she met her ex-husband’s uncle at her work who was there to rent machines and he recognised her. She brought her travel forward because of this.
It was put to her that Cairo’s population was 20 million and the fact that her ex-husband’s uncle walked into her work after she had received an Australian visa appeared to be very coincidental. She stated that it really happened. She thought that perhaps they may have known she as there as he asked whether she wanted to run forever and had to go back to Islam and her husband.
It was put to her that she had been divorced 11 or 12 years so it was strange her husband was still interested and she claimed he was a very sick man and said he would never leave her alone. Asked about the alleged kidnapping, it was strange the person who stopped had a spray or immobilising agent in his car. She said that her ex-husband said he had been following her before.
She was asked about an alleged court document regarding a case that was brought against her after she left Cairo that she had provided to the Tribunal. She claimed her late brother gave it to her – he had been contacted by a lawyer about a week before her DIBP interview and these documents said she was requested to attend. This was in April 2019. The Tribunal looked at the document and asked about a photocopy of a torn-off corner piece of paper and she said it was a receipt number. She said this case was not real – she said that her ex-husband was trying to get her to come back to Egypt by putting out a fake summons. She was asked why this occurred 8 years after the divorce and a week before her DIBP interview, which appeared very coincidental timing. She said her family had been targeted for years and he had tried to find her – one brother had to hide in a monastery, another had to move with his family to Hurghada.

Asked how they could find his brothers but couldn’t find her. She said she worked in the same job for four or five years and it was again put to her that it was strange they couldn’t find her. Country information was put to her that women did sometimes convert for marriage and she was asked if she had country information about women with her profile who were targeted, she said there was a famous case regarding a woman who did come to Australia. There was also not much country information that supported her claim that MB were targeting Christian women she said there were a lot. She was asked to provide country information that indicated the MB were involved in systematic targeting of Christians. She was also asked if there was any reason why she couldn’t move to somewhere else in Cairo or in Egypt such as Alexandria, and she claimed that she would have to provide her official ID wherever she went and they would know she had re-converted and changed her name. This would cause her problems. Harassment against divorced Christian women also existed all over Egypt.
It was put to her that she claimed she was getting married next year. It was put to her that she had previously made a claim that she feared her family were going to marry her off, and she was asked if this was now no longer a claim. She agreed that this was now no longer a claim. It was put to her that she had also claimed that she feared her family was intolerant of divorced, single women. She was asked if this claim was also no longer valid, and she said that she would be okay to them now. The Tribunal said it would no longer pursue this claim. She then claimed that they would accept her if she and her husband returned, but not if she returned by herself. It was put to her that she would still be married, and she said they wouldn’t want her to live alone. It was put to her that she was already living on her own before and she said they would try to force her to live with them.
It was also put to her that she also claimed that in Egypt she would also voice her opinions against Islam and women’s rights. Asked how she would voice them, she claimed that she said things at work. Asked if spoke at work or in a social context, she said it was just in normal work. Asked if she had been forced out of work, she said that she had been forced out of work because she was made to wear a hijab. It was put to her that it was strange that they would force a non-Muslim woman to wear a hijab, or hire a non-Muslim woman and then only tell her about having to wear a hijab after they hired her. She claimed this was what happened. She was asked if she could provide country information that indicated such things occurred in Egypt.
Regarding the sexual harassment claim, the Tribunal asked her why she believed it constituted serious harm. She said this could go into physical and verbal harm or kidnapping if women raised their voices. It is well-known that Egypt has the highest number of sexual harassment. She was asked about a psychologist’s report from March 2019. She hadn’t seen a psychologist since then (she moved to Perth and had returned). She did not want any other medical evidence to be taken into consideration.
She was asked why her sister claimed asylum in [Country 1], and she said that her ex-husband threatened to kidnap and kill their children if they didn’t tell him where she was. A witness was called via phone and he ([Mr B]) spoke in support of her claim. He said they had grown up together and went to the same church and he knew the family quite well. He was aware of what happened to her as she told him what happened to her. The Tribunal asked what he knew of her claims as she told him, he said that she told him that she was involved with a Muslim person who raped her. Asked if what he knew of her claims came from what she told him, he said he experienced some and she told him others.
Asked what parts of her claim he had experienced, he said he went there in 2020 and took his family to the old neighbourhood and it was scary for him and his family. Asked why the applicant’s sister went to [Country 1] he said he had spoken to her, and she had been under death threats from the MB and a number of Muslim people. Asked why her sister was being targeted, he said it was because of the applicant’s circumstances and they would get her sister if they couldn’t get the applicant. He said the applicant’s sister had told him. He said he wasn’t living in Egypt when these things happened. He believed it would be a death sentence for her if she went back to Egypt and it would be a good thing for some ignorant people in Egypt if they killed her for re-converting. Asked how she could live in Egypt for 11 years, he said it was probably luck.
A priest called as a witness was tried to be contacted twice with no luck. The applicant was asked if her assaults were ever reported to the police, she said she didn’t but reported them to the church as she was in hiding.
The applicant was told about s 424AA and it was told that there was no evidence that her sister’s claim was based on her being targeted because of the applicant. Yet in her DIBP interview she didn’t mention this was the reason why her sister was in [Country 1] – this could have been a strong piece of corroboration and it was strange that she hadn’t mentioned it previously. She said she didn’t have a lawyer to help fill out her application and she thought she had a strong claim and couldn’t think of all her claims at once.
The priest was then contacted on the third attempt. He was advised the Tribunal had his statement and he was asked if he wished to add anything else. He said that the applicant faced serious problems if she returned to Egypt. He was asked if there were many instances of women being kidnapped in Cairo in the way the applicant claimed – he said he had seen kidnappings in northern Egypt and was asked if he saw them in Cairo. He said he had lived in Cairo for 10 years and had seen them there too. It was put to him that he had claimed that once she had re-converted to Christianity she had to leave the country, yet she didn’t come to Australia for seven years, and before this she had travelled to other asylum-granting countries several times yet never claimed protection.
He was asked how she could leave and return so readily when he claimed that she had to leave the country. He said that people knew each other in Egypt easily – her former priest he met in Sydney told him all about the applicant’s story. He was asked the original question again. He said that he had experienced other cases where people faced serious harms and that she could have been lucky.
The adviser said that the applicant had a cumulative risk profile and that this should be taken into consideration. There were ongoing credible reports that Coptic Christians were subject to attacks and they would seek to provide further country information. She was advised that as far as possible the country information had to reflect the applicant’s profile.
Post-Hearing Submission dated 28 January 2022
The Tribunal received a post-hearing submission from [Organisation] addressing a number of issues raised at hearing and claimed the applicant would be subject to serious harm on return to Egypt for the following reasons:
a.Because of her faith as a Coptic Christian and an apostate after having left Islam;
b.Her membership of the following Particular Social Groups (PSG):
i.Women in Egypt;
ii.Coptic Christian women in Egypt who have converted from Islam;
iii.Divorced women in Egypt;
iv.Women in Egypt who are victims of domestic and gender-based violence; and
v.Coptic Christian women who have escaped a marriage from a Muslim man with influential ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor’s visa [in] December 2017 and she applied for protection on 22 January 2018. I have sighted a copy of her passport and accept that Egypt is the applicant’s country of nationality.
The applicant is a [Age] year-old divorced woman. She claimed that if she returned to Egypt she would be killed by her ex-husband or the MB because she had divorced her husband against his wishes and changed her religion back to Christianity. She also claimed that she would be sexually harassed, forced to wear the hijab, had no house or job in Egypt.
In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth. Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.
I have taken into account a March 2019 psychologist’s report provided by the applicant however I do not lend it much weight. It is based on four sessions and sporadic phone and email contact. I note that the assessment is based in whole or in part on self-reported symptoms and I note that courts have previously stated that there is ‘…a need for caution in cases where examining psychologists act upon self-reporting…’[1] In addition to this the psychologist says that he wished to advocate on behalf of the applicant in urging a resolution of her refugee status. This diminishes the objectivity of the report in the opinion of the Tribunal.
[1] R v NK [2016] NSWSC 498 (22 April 2016)
I found the applicant’s evidence regarding her claims to lack credibility. For reasons set out below I did not find the applicant to be a reliable, credible or truthful witness, and that she fabricated many of her claims in order to be granted a protection visa.
Kidnapping, Forced Marriage and Conversion
Based on the copies of the computerised records that I have seen I accept that the applicant married a Muslim man in February 2007 and voluntarily converted to Islam in order to do so, and that they divorced in March 2010. I also accept that she then converted back to Christianity.
I do not accept that the applicant was ever kidnapped by force in Cairo, then made to convert to Islam, and that she then escaped from her husband by drugging him with sleeping pills and spent more than a year in hiding in a monastery. Her claim to have been followed by a man who pretended to help her when she got a flat tyre and then immobilised her by spraying something in her face lacks credibility.
I note that the applicant’s adviser provided evidence that Coptic Christians have been kidnapped in Cairo and that hundreds of Christian women have disappeared in Egypt. I also note that the priest called as a witness also claimed that he had seen kidnappings of women in northern Egypt and in Cairo.
Reports about abduction and forced conversion however, are viewed with scepticism by DFAT and the US Department of State, while other country information notes that some families may say their daughters were kidnapped to avoid being ostracised.[2] Overall, the evidence put forward by the applicant comes from Christian advocacy groups and a priest called in to support her claim.
[2] Country Of Origin Information Services Section (COISS) ‘Coptic Christians’ 20 August 2021, p 13.
I place greater weight on the more objective evidence provided by US and Australian government sources, as well as a number of implausibilities in her claims referred to below in finding that the applicant’s account of her alleged immobilisation and kidnapping to have been fabricated.
I do not accept her claim that she was continually beaten on a daily basis for three years and drugged by her husband for the three years they were married and that he threatened to kill her or her family if she didn’t listen to him, and that she was not allowed to work or go out of the house without him.
His actions in telling her to call her family six weeks after disappearing from work saying that she was married and not to try and find her would seem to lack credibility if he didn’t wish to raise her profile. It is reasonable to believe that this would have made her family more suspicious of what occurred and to raise her case with authorities, particularly with the Coptic church and/or advocacy groups if they were as lacking influence as she claimed them to be. Yet she has not provided any information that her case was raised with any church/advocacy group.
The timeline that she has given also raises concerns regarding the truthfulness of her claim. At her hearing she claimed that she drugged her husband and left the house in March 2010. At page six of her post-hearing submission she claimed that she then hid in a monastery for over a year, then led a cautious life including wearing big sunglasses, wigs and a scarf to avoid being located by her ex-husband.
I also note that in her statutory declaration of 5 April 2019 she claimed that she stayed at the church for less than one year and that she did not leave the church until she was converted because it was not safe. The letter from the Orthodox Coptic Patriarchate from July 2011 that she provided states that she was received back into the church on 31 March 2011.
This is inconsistent with her travel history outlined in her protection visa application in Australia, in which she claimed that she went on a one-week holiday to [Country 8] from 30 January 2011 which was only 10 months after she allegedly drugged and left her husband and when she was allegedly hiding in a church or monastery in Egypt. The letter from the patriarchate indicates that she wasn’t converted until after she had returned from holiday in [Country 8].
There is a further inconsistency evident in her protection visa application in which she has made no mention of staying at a church/monastery for any period of time - her list of addresses simply states that she lived in Grand City in Maadi (Cairo) from April 2010 until February 2012.
Her subsequent travel history is also not indicative of someone leading a cautious life or fearing serious harm in Egypt. She holidayed in [Countries 5 and 6] (August 2011), [Country 4] (November/December 2012), [Country 2] (April/May 2013) and [Country 1] (September/October 2013). She could have applied for protection in any of these five countries during the approximately two years in which she took these trips. Yet every time she willingly returned to Egypt, the country in which she claimed to fear serious harm.
I do not accept that she did this because her husband was well-connected as a result of laundering money for, and selling [Products] to the MB and he could find her in Europe and [Country 1]. The idea that her ex-husband could be powerful and influential enough to find her in [Country 1] (a country of [Population 1]) or [Country 2] (population [Population 2]) but be unable to do so in his own country lacks credibility. This is even more so given she travelled through the airport in a passport in her own name, including during the period of MB ascendancy when President Morsi was in power (June 2012 – July 2013). Her willingness to voluntarily return to Egypt and do so without incident even though she claimed her ex-husband was influential within the MB entirely lacks credibility. As a consequence I do not accept that her husband was influential with the MB or sold [Products] or laundered money for them.
While I accept that the applicant is divorced, I do not accept that the divorce occurred at the request of the applicant (khula’) and without her ex-husband’s approval. The fact that it was initiated by her relies on the oral evidence of the applicant which I have found lacks credibility. Post-hearing she provided what she claimed was a copy of the court decision. I lend this no weight – firstly it appeared as though it could have been produced on any home computer. Second she had previously provided a copy of a court summons that she said had been falsely provided to her family allegedly in order to ‘flush her out’. She also claimed in her April 2019 statutory declaration that it was easy to fake documents in Egypt, so it should come as no surprise that I am not satisfied as to the veracity of the document she has provided.
The document is also inconsistent with the timeline of events that she has described elsewhere. She said at hearing that she drugged and escaped from her husband in March 2010. In her April 2019 statutory declaration she said that it was late 2010. Her divorce was registered on 27 March 2010 which means the court must have decided on the khul’ divorce prior to this. Yet country information[3] indicates that legal procedures for khul’ divorces can take six months or in many cases even longer, which means the process would have to have been initiated as early as September 2009, well before she claimed to have ‘escaped’ from her husband. She also claimed that she was unaware whether her husband contested the divorce when the same country information indicates that a court-ordered mediation process must be carried out as part of the khula’ process.
[3] See for example Khula: the last resort? - Daily News Egypt and Egypt: Divorced from Justice: VII. Inadequate Government Response (hrw.org), accessed 31 January 2022.
Because I do not accept that the applicant initiated the divorce against her ex-husband’s wishes, it follows that he was not opposed to them parting ways. Indeed, because it was not a khula’ divorce I am satisfied that he initiated the divorce. Because of this it follows that he never targeted her because of their divorce, never sent a sheikh to threaten the applicant and her sister and sister’s family that unless they converted to Islam the applicant’s face would be deformed and her sister’s children would be kidnapped. Because she did not initiate a khula’ divorce, I also do not accept that her ex-husband visited her brothers’ places looking for her and that they had to move or seek refuge from his threats. The applicant provided a copy of her brothers’ lease in Hurghada that she said provided he moved because of the threats. All it could prove was that he moved, not the reason for his move which could have been for work, study, marriage or the like. I therefore lend it no weight in supporting her claim.
I note that the applicant’s sister has had a protection visa application lodged by her husband in [Country 1] approved as at 27 January 2014. The applicant provided a copy of the approval letter on 10 December 2022 saying that they had claimed asylum based on the threats from her kidnapper. The Tribunal asked for a copy of the claim/decision so it could satisfy itself that the sister’s claim provided some corroboration for the applicant’s claim. The applicant’s sister originally said that she could not obtain a copy because it required the authorisation of her husband with whom ‘she had issues’.
At hearing she was given until 17 January to provide a copy of the application. The applicant provided screen shots of the FOI query to [Country 1 Immigration service] and advice that the estimated completion date for the FOI request was 17 January. On 10 January they requested an extension of time to the Tribunal and it was granted until 21 January. On 20 January a further seven days’ extension was requested and they were given until 28 January. The applicant’s adviser asked that the matter not be finalised until the documents were received and asked for another six weeks’ extension.
The Tribunal then checked the [Country 1 Immigration service] portal using the reference number that had been provided by the applicant in previous correspondence, and it indicated that the request had been processed and the documents were available on the applicant’s sister’s portal. The applicant was advised of this and a copy of the application with a separate, unsigned and undated statement was then provided. The Tribunal then requested a copy of the applicant’s sister’s portal login details so it could check that the statement was the one actually provided as part of the application. This request was refused due to concerns over privacy and triggering concerns on the part of the applicant’s sister.

I note that the statement provided corroborates the claim that the applicant was kidnapped, escaped to the church and the sisters’ family was threatened in order to find out the location of the applicant. The Tribunal is however unable to lend this statement much weight as genuine corroboration however. The applicant is obviously close to her sister given that she has visited her several times since she has been in [Country 1] so her family are not purely objective witnesses. Given the delays in providing the application and without the ability to verify that the statement provided to the Tribunal is the same as that given to the [Country 1 Immigration service] the Tribunal has concerns as to its genuineness that inevitably decreases its utility as a corroborative document.
Regardless of the claim made and accepted on behalf of her sister however, the fact that the applicant visited her sister in [Country 1] in 2015 and 2016 and never applied for protection raises serious concerns in the mind of the Tribunal as to the truthfulness of her claim to fear serious harm in Egypt. It makes no sense that if she felt in such danger she would twice visit her sister whose asylum claims allegedly based on the applicant’s own situation had been accepted, yet never apply for protection herself. I do not accept that the applicant thought there were too many guns in [Country 1] and only felt safe in Australia given that on both occasions she voluntarily returned to Egypt.
I also do not accept that a fake court summons was sent to her brother in order to ‘flush her out’. Not only does this rely on her oral testimony, it was allegedly sent eight years after her divorce but only a week prior to her DIBP interview. I find this coincidental timing highly suspicious. I also do not accept that her [brothers] in Egypt had to hide from her ex-husband’s targeting because it relies on her claim of a vendetta by her wronged ex-husband which I have found to have been fabricated. Nor do I accept that she changed her work and home addresses more than once because he would find them and she had to move again. According to her protection visa application she only lived in two locations after her divorce and before she came to Australia, the second one for more than five years. And she only worked in two businesses, the first of which for more than four years. This is not indicative of someone who needs to constantly move for fear of being located by her ex-husband who was allegedly well-connected enough to track her down in [Country 1] or [Country 2] if she applied for protection in either of those countries.
Her four-month delay in coming to Australia after receiving her visa is also not indicative of someone living in fear in Egypt. I do not accept that she only left when the uncle of her ex-husband came to her workplace by chance and recognised her and she feared that this information would then get to her ex-husband. Once again this relies on her claim that her ex-husband was targeting her which I have found to have been fabricated, as well as the incredible coincidence that in a city of 10 million people her ex-husband’s uncle came into her workplace at the same time she was there, and after she had received a visa to Australia.
Claims Relating to being a Woman in Egypt, Divorced Woman in Egypt, Woman Victim of Domestic- and Gender-Based Violence in Egypt, Coptic Christian Woman Escaping Marriage to Muslim Man Influential in MB, Coptic Christian Woman in Egypt who converted from Islam.
There are a range of claims here and I will deal with them each individually:
a.Divorced Woman in Egypt. There are several elements to this claim apparent from the various statements made by the applicant:
i.I do not accept that the applicant’s family would marry her off because she was divorced. Given that she was engaged she stated at the hearing that this was no longer an integer of the claim and it will not be addressed further; and
ii.I also do not accept that the applicant will face a real chance of serious harm simply for being a divorced woman in Egypt. Approximately 20 per cent of Egyptian divorces end in divorce so it is not uncommon.[4] And given that the applicant would by now be married again, she would not be considered single. I note that her husband does not currently have a right to enter Egypt as an Australian citizen, however he can apply for a tourist visa on arrival or a spouse visa if he desires a longer stay. The applicant provided no evidence as to why he would be unable to do either (or both);
[4] Egypt's family planning policies tested by COVID-19 - Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle East, accessed 31 January 2022.
iii.I do not accept that her family were intolerant of divorced, single women and that they would force her to live with them. She lived on her own without problems for seven years after her divorce without being made to live with her family so I am satisfied that if she did travel there without her husband she would be able to live alone without problems from her family;
iv.I also do not accept that her ex-husband would be even angrier if he found out that she was in a relationship with someone else. Given I have found her account regarding the nature of the divorce from her husband to have been fabricated, I am satisfied that even if he knew she was re-married her ex-husband would not care.
b.Woman Victim of Domestic- and Gender-based Violence in Egypt. I do not accept that the applicant suffered domestic violence at the hand of her first husband. Her account of her marriage from the way in which she became married, her ex-husband’s connections with the MB, the nature of their divorce and her ex-husband’s targeting of her family has been fabricated. Because of this I am also satisfied that her account of being raped after being kidnapped, being beaten daily and drugged to stop her from escaping or force her to have sex have also been fabricated.
c.Coptic Christian Woman Escaping Marriage to Muslim Man Influential in MB. I have already found that her claim to have ‘escaped’ her marriage and that her ex-husband was influential in the MB to have been fabricated. I do not accept that simply being a Coptic woman who is divorced from a Muslim man means that there is a real chance that she will suffer significant harm. There is no country information that has been provided to support such a claim nor has the Tribunal found any, and I place weight on the fact that the applicant was able to live alone and work successfully in Cairo for the seven years between her divorce and arriving in Australia, during which time she had several overseas holiday trips to countries in Europe and [Country 2] and returned to Egypt each time.
d.Coptic Christian Woman in Egypt who converted from Islam. I accept that the applicant converted to Islam to marry a Muslim man and then converted back to Christianity once her marriage ended in divorce and that she was officially a Christian from 2011 until she came to Australia in 2017. Because of this she is actually a revert, as opposed to a convert from Islam. Country information indicates that those who revert to Christianity are able to obtain a new identity card with the Christian name and religious designation. I also note that the applicant’s passport is in her Christian name. Given this, and her ability to live alone, work, travel internationally and willingly return to Egypt I am satisfied that there is not a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm for reverting from Islam back to Christianity.
e.Woman in Egypt. The applicant has a tertiary education and was employed in a relevant field. She enjoyed several holidays to Europe and [Country 1] and willingly returned to Egypt each time. This is indicative of a successful woman living a comfortable life and not afraid to return to Egypt.
f.I note that country information indicates that the majority of women in Egypt face societal discrimination that restrict their participation in the community and workforce and that the majority of women face a high risk of gender-based violence.[5] The Tribunal has to look at the entirety of the applicant’s life and claim though, and her travel and work record, particularly given that she claimed her final job before leaving Egypt was as a member of a board, and her ability to live as a single woman in Cairo for years would indicate that she did not suffer discrimination in the workplace or in society more broadly that would amount to serious harm nor would be likely to in the reasonably foreseeable future.
g.The issue of sexual harassment and whether it constitutes serious harm is a difficult issue to traverse. The Tribunal acknowledges that sexual harassment exists in Egypt and that she claimed that men would touch her body, ‘do things to her’, she was physically and emotionally harassed on a daily basis, received threats, indecent proposals and experienced physical harassment from men. Whilst one is loath to categorise forms of sexual harassment, it is reasonable to differentiate between what can be called ‘low-level’ harassment such as leering and/or unwanted and harassing remarks and much more serious forms such as assault.
h.I accept that the applicant has experienced this form of ‘low-level’ sexual harassment during her time in Egypt. Beyond this, there is no evidence presented that the Tribunal has accepted that anything more serious than this form of harassment has occurred. The Tribunal found that her account of suffering rape and significant domestic violence during her first marriage to have been fabricated. This willingness to fabricate such a serious claim seriously damages her credibility. Along with her international travel to several asylum-granting countries over a number of years and her willingness to return to Egypt each time without claiming protection means that I am not satisfied that the harassment the applicant was exposed to during her time in Egypt reached the threshold sufficient to be classified as serious harm for s 5J purposes, nor would it do so in the reasonably foreseeable future.
i.I have taken into account the adviser’s post-hearing submission in which she cited what she claimed was a similar case that had been remitted by the Tribunal previously. Each case must be judged on its merits, and I note the applicant referred to in the case cited was a single woman with no close relatives in Egypt, neither of which apply to the applicant.
Coptic Christian
[5] DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt, 17 June 2019, p 31.
I do not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm as a Coptic Christian either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if she were to return to Egypt. Whilst I accept that she is a revert to Christianity I have already discussed why she would not face serious harm because of this. As to her identity as a Christian I note that country information indicates that Christians face a moderate risk of discrimination that is more likely to be social than official and that it varies by region. I have already noted that the applicant was tertiary-educated, employed in a relevant field and regularly undertook overseas holidays which would indicate someone well-integrated into Egyptian society living a comfortable lifestyle.
I have taken into account letters provided by a Coptic priest ([Fr D] who also provided another support letter post-hearing) and a friend of the applicant, as well as telephone interviews with the friend and another priest. Although I have no doubt that they have been given in good faith I lend them little weight either singly or cumulatively. The friend’s letter simply repeats the claims as told to him by the applicant and recounts his perceptions of Cairo based on his recent visits where he claimed it was unsafe to be wearing a cross and the MB had a very real presence and questioned and harassed people on the street.
The witness had no first-hand knowledge of the applicant’s experience and cannot be considered an objective witness given their long-standing friendship. His account regarding the overt presence and strength of the MB is also at odds with available country information that indicates since the fall of President Morsi the government has cracked down on them, weakened them and forced the movement underground.[6]
[6] DFAT Country Information Report, p 25.
[Father D’s] first letter states that after the applicant returned to Christianity she was told to keep out of sight and ‘abandon service’ until she could travel outside Egypt. His second letter repeats what the applicant told her and says that he has lived experience of Chrisitian women being raped by Muslim men in Cairo and Upper Egypt. Father Hennes letter indicated that he had learnt what he knew of the applicant’s situation from [Father D] and he repeated that after she converted back to Christianity she needed to leave Egypt. None of the two people questioned could explain how the applicant was able to leave Egypt and return several times after her reversion to Christianity and they could provide no answer other than ‘luck’.
None of the witnesses have first-hand knowledge of her alleged kidnapping or divorce, nor did they have any reasonable explanation as to why the applicant’s life and travel history in Egypt after her reversion appeared to be at odds with the profile of someone in so much danger in Egypt that they required protection in Australia. I have already dealt with the claims put forward by Coptic advocates regarding Coptic women being kidnapped/raped and the scepticism with which other more objective sources view them.
Other Issues
I do not accept that the applicant voiced her opinions about Islam and about women’s rights (such as not being made to wear the hijab) because they are causes she is passionate about, that her work colleagues didn’t appreciate it and that she would be at risk of harm from the MB because she would continue to voice her opinion on return to Egypt.
To begin with this claim was never made prior to the primary decision being made and no reason was given as to why this was the case. Section 423A requires that I draw an unfavourable inference as to the credibility of the claim as a consequence. I also note that the unfavourable reaction of her work colleagues to her views did not seem to impact on her employment as she worked for over four years at a company until the start of 2017 at which point she became a board member of another company. This is not the work record of someone who alienates her work colleagues over her public criticisms of Islam.
I also do not accept that the applicant has been forced out of work because her employer tried to force her to wear a hijab. It was a late claim and I have drawn an unfavourable inference regarding it as per s 423A of the Act. It also made no sense that an employer would employ a Christian woman and then only later try to force her to wear a hijab. The Tribunal is unaware of such occurrences in Egypt and the applicant was given the opportunity to provide evidence to support this but failed to do so.
As the applicant hasn’t raised any other claims to fear persecution, and having had regard to all the evidence, and the applicant’s claims both singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary Protection
Because I do not accept that the applicant was ever kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam or marry a Muslim man who raped, beat or generally mistreated her and that she escaped and initiated a khula’ divorce, that she would be targeted because she had reverted to Christianity or generally as a Coptic Christian (or as a member of a female sub-group of these categories) or that she would publicly voice criticisms about Islam or in favour of women’s rights I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
While I accept that she has suffered some form of sexual harassment in Egypt I am not satisfied that it is at a level that would constitute significant harm. As a consequence I also do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on the basis of these claims as outlined in the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Rodger Shanahan
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.
…