1828977 (Refugee)

1828977 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2440 (14 April 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Owen Harris
CASE NUMBER:  1828977
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Egypt
MEMBER:Ann Duffield
DATE:14 April 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Canberra
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 14 April 2023 at 3:52pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – Coptic Christian – sister’s marriage to a Muslim man – claimed abduction and forced conversion to Islam – reconversion to Christianity – targeted by sister’s husband – credibility concerns – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 25 September 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Egypt applied for the visas on 4 January 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 25 September 2018 on the basis that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia had protection obligations.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 6 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s husband, her brother and a family friend. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic and English languages.
The applicants were represented in relation to the review and the representative attended the hearing.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
The issue in this case is whether the primary applicant is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a citizen of Egypt born in [year] ([age] years old).
The other four applicants comprise her husband and three children. Her husband was born in [year] (53 years old). Her three children were born in [year] (son); [year](son) and [year] (daughter); aged [age], [age] and [age] years of age respectively.
The department found no issues with their claimed identities and the Tribunal accepts that the parties are who they claim to be and in relation to each other and that their country of return is Egypt.
The entire family first came to Australia on tourist visas [in] February 2017. They departed Australia [in] March 2017. They were granted a further tourist visa on 20 November 2017 and travelled to Australia [in] December 2017. They lodged applications for protection visas, all based on the claims of the primary applicant, on 4 January 2018. They have been here for five years.
The applicant has one brother who is an Australian citizen.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant and her family are Coptic Christians. Her sister [Ms A], born [year], was married in a Christian ceremony in 1998. She later changed her name to [Alias A] and in 2002 she left her marriage and disappeared from home. The applicant later discovered that [Alias A] converted to Islam. They were estranged for many years. In 2003 the family discovered that [Alias A] married a Muslim man. Her child from her Christian marriage is in hiding. She also has one child with her Muslim husband.
In 2016 the applicant claims that she ran into her sister quite by chance at a hospital as [Alias A] was a witness to a car accident in which the applicant’s husband’s sister was involved. The applicant’s sister told her that she no longer wanted to be a Muslim and wished to convert back to her Christian faith.
The applicant, [Alias A] and their mother continued to meet every fortnight or so either in public or at the applicant’s house.
After a while, the applicant states that [Alias A]’s husband noticed changes in her and began to follow her and listen to her phone conversations. She noticed that her husband had overheard her and warned the applicant to be careful as her husband’s family was very violent. This discovery has led to the applicant’s sister being subject to domestic violence including two documented incidents in December 2021 and January 2022. The applicant fears that the violence will extend to herself and her family as they believe that [Alias A]’s husband knows how to find them. [Alias A] has refused to tell her husband where the applicant and her family are.
The applicant has said that she and her family will not renew their Egyptian passports as they fear their current location is made available to connections of [Alias A]’s Islamic husband. The applicant states that he has been able to trace the family previously using unknown methods.
On 8 July 2017 [Alias A]’s husband sent a group of people to the workplace of the applicant’s husband and they threatened him and asked his co-workers for his private address.
The applicant states that after this she became concerned for the safety of her family and her husband, and they relocated to another city in [City 1].
In November 2017 the applicant’s husband was driving to work when a truck tried to smash into him on the highway. Her husband reported the incident to the police and told them the whole story. They insulted him and insisted on not mentioning anything related to religion in the official report. The police did not provide any protection or support to her husband.
The family relocated to the applicant’s aunt’s apartment in Alexandria until they decided what to do.
On 7 December 2017 they relocated to Cairo and stayed in a hotel and then travelled to Australia [in] December 2016.
Around 21 December 2017 [Alias A]’s husband arrived at the workplace of the applicant’s husband and attacked his business partner then destroyed the place. The partner reported the incident to the police, but they refused to protect him. This incident prompted them to apply for protection in Australia.
The last contact the applicant had with [Alias A] was in October 2022.
The applicant claims that they cannot relocate to another part of Egypt as [Alias A]’s Muslim family can follow them anywhere as they have connections. The authorities cannot protect them because they are biased towards Muslims and discriminate against Coptic Christians.
Before the Tribunal
The Tribunal has a copy of the delegate’s decision that the applicant provided along with their application for review. The Tribunal also has a copy of the department’s file.
The applicants provided the Tribunal with a number of submissions and other documents including the following:
a.Copies of passports, birth certificates, drivers licences for the applicants
b.Evidence of the business activities of the applicant’s husband and financial records for 2015-2018
c.A copy of a lease agreement for furnished property in Cairo dated October 2017
d.Copies of an Islamic and Christian birth certificate for the applicant’s sister [Alias A]
e.Letter from [Father B] dated 15 December 2018
f.Letter from [Father C] dated 23 March 2023
g.Police report dated 18 July 2017
h.Police report dated 19 July 2017
i.Police report dated 25 November 2017
j.Police report dated 21 December 2017
k.Letter from the children’s school dated 27 November 2017
l.Companion House letters dated [in] March 2023
m.Container bill of lading and contents
n.Human rights watch reports 2019-2023
o.Country information on attacks against Copts and Coptic churches from 2019-2023
p.Bank account showing the movement of some AUD$689,052.
q.Copy of the applicant’s submission dated 4 April 2023
The Tribunal has had regard to all the information before it as well as the applicant’s and others oral evidence during the hearing and makes the following findings.
Protection Claims
The Tribunal has tried to summarise the applicant’s claims on the basis of their written submissions and the oral evidence at the hearing as follows:
a.[Ms A]/[Alias A] was kidnapped by Islamic followers and converted to Islam
b.[Ms A]/[Alias A] and the applicant exposed to sexual violence by Islamic followers
c.The applicant’s husband and children are targeted for physical violence by unknown men associated with [Ms A]/[Alias A]’s husband and unprotected by the police or the state.
d.There is state-sanctioned violence towards Coptic Christians in Egypt
e.They cannot relocate to anywhere else in Egypt because [Alias A]’s husband can find them anywhere.
Country information - DFAT Country Information Report Egypt 2019
There is no statutory prohibition in Egypt on converting from one religion to another. In order to convert to Christianity, authorities require documents from the receiving church, identity documents and fingerprints. Checks are also made on criminal history as conversion often requires a change in name. Converts to Islam will generally have their conversions recognised and their identity cards changed accordingly without difficulty or delay. However, courts and government officials have generally interpreted sharia as prohibiting conversion from Islam.
Authorities have at times reportedly refused to recognise such conversions, including through failing to amend a convert’s national identity card (and corresponding record) to reflect their chosen faith. This has significant ramifications for personal status issues, such as marriage and divorce, and the state’s view of the religious identity of any children born to a convert. Egyptian children obtain a national identity card at age 16, with their religious identity matching that of their parents (their Muslim parent, in the case of a mixed marriage between a Muslim man and Christian woman).
A 2011 court ruling allowed Christians who converted to Islam and then back to Christianity (generally in order to more easily access divorce) to amend their identity cards to reflect their return to their original faith. DFAT understands, however, that only a small number of such individuals have been permitted to do so, and that several thousand others are still waiting to have their cards changed back.
Converts from Islam to other religions are not generally subject to officially sanctioned violence, detention or surveillance. However, they face significant societal discrimination in the form of rejection, ostracism and sometimes violence from their families or communities. Such discrimination is worse in poorer and rural areas, which tend to be more socially conservative. The level of discrimination is likely to be higher if the convert engages in proselytization.
DFAT is aware of anecdotal reports of Christian women and girls being abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Such reports have occasionally led to increased tensions and clashes between Christian and Muslim communities, particularly when the alleged abductions involve family members of Christian priests. However, there is little evidence to suggest that forced conversions occur as a regular phenomenon. DFAT assesses that most religious conversions in Egypt occur either to enable a person to marry someone from another faith, or to access divorce.
DFAT assesses that a person converting from Islam faces a moderate risk of official discrimination. They may experience difficulties in having their conversion officially recognised, including on national identity cards, which may affect their ability to access government or religious services. DFAT assesses that a person converting from Islam faces a high risk of societal discrimination in the form of rejection, ostracism and possible violence from their families and communities.
There are no legal barriers to prevent Christians from being visible in public life, and a number of Christians have become prominent and influential in Egyptian politics and business. DFAT understands that the percentage of Christians in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population. However, Christians tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles, and in the upper ranks of the military and security services. It is very rare for Christians to be appointed as presidents, deans or vice-deans in public universities. While anti-discriminatory laws and legal protections exist, these are not always enforced fairly and Christians may experience some discrimination, particularly in rural areas.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) runs a program in Egypt that assists voluntary returnees, in cooperation with the country from which they are returning. Egyptian authorities cooperate with the IOM in these arrangements. DFAT assesses that people who return to Egypt after several years’ absence will not face any adverse attention on their return due to their absence. Likewise, DFAT assesses that failed asylum seekers will not face adverse attention because of their failed application for asylum when they return to Egypt.
Egypt accepts involuntary returnees. Egyptian officials generally pay little regard to failed asylum seekers upon their return to the country, although it is possible that some individuals will be questioned upon entry or will have their entry delayed. Many thousands of Egyptians enter and leave the country every day. Egyptians who out-stay their work or tourist visas in other countries are regularly returned to Egypt with no attention paid to them by authorities. DFAT is not aware of failed asylum seekers being reported by airport authorities to the Ministry of the Interior or any of the security services beyond the normal processes for returning Egyptian nationals.
DFAT assesses that Egyptian embassies or other officials usually take note of political activities conducted by Egyptians abroad. However, only particularly high-profile cases (i.e. those that gain media notoriety in Egypt) are generally of interest to Egyptian authorities. Lower profile political activists may be questioned on return to Egypt, but are unlikely to be detained or otherwise mistreated.
Abduction and forced conversion of Coptic women and girls
The following is an extract from an article entitled Abduction, Rape, and Forced Conversion of Christian Girls in Egypt in September, 2020:
The kidnapping, sexual abuse and forced conversion of Christian women and girls in Egypt — a "particularly vulnerable group to exploitation" that is quietly living an unimaginable nightmare — is rampant, with no signs of easing up. This is the finding of a report published on September 10, 2020 by Coptic Solidarity, an international organization based in Washington D.C., that works to promote equal citizenship rights for Egypt's Christian minority.
In its 15-page report, "'Jihad of the Womb': Trafficking of Coptic Women & Girls in Egypt," Coptic Solidarity documents "the widespread practice of abduction and trafficking" and estimates that there have been "about 500 cases within the last decade, where elements of coercion were used that amount to trafficking," according to the UN's own definitions particularly per its "Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children."
According to Coptic Solidarity:
The capture and disappearance of Coptic women and minor girls is a bane of the Coptic community in Egypt, yet little has been done to address this scourge by the Egyptian or foreign governments, NGOs, or international bodies. According to a priest in the Minya Governorate, at least 15 girls go missing every year in his area alone. His own daughter was nearly kidnapped had he not been able to intervene in time.
The report offers 13 separate case studies. Victims range from teenage girls, to newlywed and pregnant young women, to married women with children. Most of the victims disappeared in one of two ways: either they were publicly kidnapped, often by being forced into a car while traveling to school, church, or work; or — especially true for teenage girls — they were lured into relationships with young Muslim men who promised them the world, until, that is, they realized they had been duped. According to a former Egyptian human trafficker:
[O]ne of the strategies they used to gain the girls' trust was for the kidnapper, a Muslim man, to tell the Christian girl he loved her and wanted to convert to Christianity for her. They would start a romantic relationship until, one day, they would decide to 'escape' together. What the girls do not know is that they are actually being kidnapped. Most of the time they will not marry their kidnapper, but someone else.
The same former trafficker shared another story:
I remember a Coptic Christian girl from a rich, well-known family in Minya. She was kidnapped by five Muslim men. They held her in a house, stripped her and filmed her naked. In the video, one of them also undressed. They threatened to make the video public if the girl wouldn't marry him.
He added:
Salafist networks began in the seventies and it's reached its highest levels now, in the era of President Sisi... A group of kidnappers meets in a mosque to discuss potential victims. They keep a close eye on Christians' houses and monitor everything that's going on. On that basis, they weave a spider's web around [the girls]....
The kidnappers receive large amounts of money. Police can help them in different ways, and when they do, they might also receive a part of the financial reward the kidnappers are paid by the Islamisation organisations. In some cases, police provide the kidnappers with drugs they seize. The drugs are then given to the girls to weaken their resistance as they put them under pressure. I even know of cases in which police offered help to beat up the girls to make them recite the Islamic creed. And the value of the reward increases whenever the girl has a position. For example, when she is the daughter of a priest or comes from a well-known family....
The Salafist group I knew rented apartments in different areas of Egypt to hide kidnapped Coptic. There, they put them under pressure and threaten them to convert to Islam. And once they reach the legal age, a specially arranged Islamic representative comes in to make the conversion official, issue a certificate and accordingly they change their ID....
If all goes to plan, the girls are also forced into marriage with a strict Muslim. Their husbands don't love them, they just marry her to make her a Muslim. She will be hit and humiliated. And if she tries to escape, or convert back to her original religion, she will be killed.
According to the Coptic Solidarity report:
The tactics include utilizing or planting Muslim female neighbors, colleagues, coworkers or friends to invite Coptic women to their home or travel across town during which time they are kidnapped by the groups who organized with the known female.
Unfortunately, "these networks are often supported by like-minded members (including high-ranking officials) of the police, national security and local administrations," adds the report."
Their roles include refusal to lodge official complaints by the victims' families, falsifying police investigations, organizing the formal sessions of conversion to Islam at Al-Azhar, or harassing families into silence and acceptance of the de facto trafficking of their loved ones.
While there is no formal apostasy law in the Egyptian judiciary system, "as a matter of fact, it is prohibited for anyone wishing to convert away from Islam," the report notes. Meanwhile, "conversion to Islam is always accepted and encouraged" without any fuss. "Based on shari'a law," then, the "obvious problem for kidnapped Coptic women and girls who are forcibly converted is that they are nearly always denied the autonomy to choose their faith or to return to their faith once forcibly converted."
Such sharia stipulations undermine parental guidance of minors in other ways: Although Egyptian minors (aged 18 or under) cannot marry without parental consent, "a minor is allowed to formally convert to Islam, after which another (Muslim) custodian is assigned to approve a marriage. This effectively allows Muslim men to strip Copts of their parental rights and Coptic girls of their constitutional protections..."
If an adult married woman converts to Islam, courts immediately annul her existing marriage (unless the husband agrees to convert likewise) and the woman becomes free to marry a Muslim man. (Needless to say, a vice versa scenario—a married Muslim woman trying to convert and marry a Coptic man—in no way invalidates her Muslim marriage.)
Whenever asked or put on the spot about the abduction or disappearance of Christian girls, the government's response, to quote Laila Baha' Eldin, Assistant Foreign Minister for Human Rights of Egypt, is:
"All reported cases of abduction had been investigated.... In most cases, it was about young women falling in love with someone from a different denomination."
As the report explains, however, "this defense... does not acknowledge or protect the ongoing rights of Coptic females":
Regardless if a women is kidnapped from her home or in public, or if she agrees to elope and then discovers she has been tricked and wishes to leave, the elements of trafficking in persons and crimes against children are all still applicable. A woman in Egypt should have the right at any time to seek safety, have the right of movement, right of freedom of conscience and belief, and the right to change her views during her lifetime.
Consideration of Claims and Evidence

The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The Tribunal has considered carefully all the written submissions and information listed above along with the applicant’s oral evidence and submissions made at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal recognised that the applicant’s husband was suffering from serious heart complaints and took this into account when he gave evidence. That evidence and the information provided is included, where relevant, in the findings and reasons that follow.
[Alias A]’s conversion to Islam and fear of significant harm from Islamists
The applicant, in her written submissions as well as in her oral evidence at the hearing gave unpersuasive evidence in relation to her sister’s alleged disappearance, conversion and reappearance. The evidence from the applicant and her husband during the hearing was that [Alias A] disappeared in 2002 and they found out she married a Muslim man and converted to Islam in early 2003. They did not hear from her again until a chance encounter at a hospital where she ([Alias A]) had been a witness to a serious motor vehicle accident involving her brother-in-law’s (the husband of the applicant) sister.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether her husband’s sister and [Alias A] had remained close, and she repeated that none of the family had any idea where [Alias A] was or what happened to her since her disappearance in 2002. The Tribunal suggested that it was a miraculous coincidence then that [Alias A] happened to witness a car accident involving her husband’s sister and was at the hospital. The applicant said that it was a coincidence.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what happened next, and she said that they began to communicate more often, and that [Alias A] and their mother also started to see each other. She claims that they did not tell her father about the reconnection with [Alias A]. The Tribunal asked the applicant what [Alias A] told her about her disappearance and her life over the past 14 years and she said that [Alias A] told them that she wanted to return to Christianity. Pressed for more details the applicant said that [Alias A]’s husband had become violent with her when he found out that she was talking to herself and their mother.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if she had discussed [Alias A]’s situation with her brother, with whom she stayed in 2017 when they visited Australia. She said that she didn’t talk to him about it. Asked for her reasons for not speaking to him about the disappearance of their sister she said that he might get upset or angry. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s brother came to Australia in around 2004-2005 which is some years after [Alias A]’s disappearance. She did not explain why he might get upset about the discussion.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she only mentioned [Alias A] again to their brother when they returned to Australia in December 2017. When pressed for details she said that she told him that they were in trouble and that some people were threatening them and wanted to kill them. She said that she told him that she ran into [Alias A] again and they had started talking but her husband was upset and made it a problem. She said that she told her brother that these people wanted to harm them. Her brother’s evidence at the hearing was consistent with this. He also denied encouraging them to fabricate the claim in order to relocate to Australia and make a protection claim.
The Tribunal continued to press the applicant for more details about the reaction of the family to [Alias A]’s disappearance and conversion to Islam and what actions they took and how they felt. She said that the whole family knew but they didn’t know where she went. She said they looked and could not find her. Asked if they inquired amongst their neighbours, she said they didn’t know. She gave no details or where or how they conducted their enquiries or for how long. They did not inform the authorities at the time or anyone else. The applicant said that the police didn’t listen to Christians.
The applicant told the Tribunal that [Alias A]’s son and first husband both disappeared as well, and they have never known what happened to them to this day. The family have not made inquiries nor seemed to think it unusual that they made no inquiries about either [Alias A] or her son.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why [Alias A]’s husband wanted to harm them, and she said that it was because [Alias A] had told them that she wanted to convert back to Christianity. She said that in Islam if you concert back to Christianity, you will be killed.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that even if that was true, it wasn’t clear why [Alias A]’s husband would want to harm her. The applicant said that it was because she was encouraging [Alias A] to come back to Christianity. Asked how [Alias A]’s husband knew this she said that he overheard [Alias A] and her talking one day and that’s when the problems started.
The applicant’s husband gave the Tribunal much the same account. When pressed about why he believed that [Alias A]’s husband wanted to harm them he said that it was because he has money and connections and was trying to get [Alias A] to convert back to Christianity through the power and influence that he has. He told the Tribunal that they said that people who assisted and joined in that effort will be killed. He continued to say “they are Muslims and the majority, and they know people and can find out anything.” He said that people were looking for him and his wife because they were helping someone convert from Islam. The Tribunal put to him that after six years she still hasn’t converted and found it unpersuasive that [Alias A]’s husband would be wanting to harm them at all.
The applicant’s husband said that some people came to his workplace and attacked his co-workers and tried to find out where he and the applicant lived. Asked why they went to his workplace and not his home he said that they didn’t know where he lived. He also said a ute-load of six men tried to run him off the road. The Tribunal put to him that it might have been just one of many hundreds of traffic incidents that day in Cairo and he said that they were yelling his name and saying that they would get him. The Tribunal asked him who he thought these people were. He said that they were Islamists and had connections everywhere. The Tribunal put to him that despite all these alleged connections, they could not find his home but could locate his workplace. He said that he knew that they were targeting his children and wanted to know where they went to school. Nevertheless, the Tribunal put to him that “these people” didn’t find out and his children were never harmed. Nor did they come to his and the applicant’s private home.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s husband may have been in a motor vehicle accident however it does not accept it was because of the reasons claimed.
The Tribunal pressed the applicant’s husband about whom he thought “they” were who were targeting himself and his family. He said that they were a secret Islamist group and were very well organised and had branches everywhere. He said it would be easy for them to know where they were. The Tribunal put to him that they had yet to find his home or his children’s school.
The Tribunal took evidence from [Mr D] who appeared in a private capacity as a friend of the family but who also works for IOM and had just returned from Egypt.
[Mr D] told the Tribunal that the priest in Alexandria had told him about the conversion of the applicant’s sister and that they were at risk of retaliation from the husband’s family. He said that there are some Islamist groups funded by certain countries in the gulf and their goal is to convert Christians. It is their holy task. He said that they abduct and forcibly convert Christian woman and place them in marriages.
The Tribunal put to the parties that this was the first time that anyone had claimed, either in written submissions or in the hearing, that the applicant’s sister had been the subject of a forced conversion and marriage and that she had been abducted.
[Mr D] said that regardless of how she came to be in the marriage the fact was that she now wanted out. He told the Tribunal that if the applicant and her family were seen to be helping her come back to Christianity they would be harmed. He said that the applicant’s husband is a wealthy man and has done a lot of good things and there is an incentive for the Islamists to target him. The Tribunal put to [Mr D] and the parties that there had been no suggestion that anyone was seeking any transaction in relation to the applicant’s sister. Indeed, the evidence had been that no one had heard anything about her for 14 years and there had certainly not been any suggestion of an abduction or some sort of ransom or some requirement that the family meet some sort of demands. The Tribunal put to them that the group had not tried to target the applicant’s family for money or to extort anything from him in return for [Alias A] or in return for not harming him and his family. The Tribunal put to them that it was finding it hard to accept this account.
The Tribunal has considered the following police reports that the applicant has provided to the Tribunal, noting that document fraud is widespread in Egypt. However, even if they are genuine documents the Tribunal gives them no weight for the following reasons.
a.Police report dated 18 July 2017
b.Police report dated 19 July 2017
c.Police report dated 25 November 2017
d.Police report dated 21 December 2017
e.Police report dated 23 December 2017
The first two relate to an incident where the alleged employee of the applicant’s husband reported that he was approached by two persons on motorbikes who were seeking the applicant’s husband or his home address or the address of his children’s’ school. He said those people made him uncomfortable. The second report is confirmation from the victim that he was unable to find out the names of the offenders.
The Tribunal gives this report no weight as corroborative evidence. The people could have been seeking the applicant’s husband for any number of reasons. It is not evidence that they were Islamist extremists seeking to kill him, his children or his wife for the reasons stated.
The police report of 25 November 2017 relates to the traffic incident involving the applicant’s husband. He reports that some people in a truck tried to break his car and make some damages. He gives no other information about who he thought might be responsible. Given his evidence that these people knew his name and were shouting at him and threatening him, it seems to the Tribunal that it would be important to include this in any police report. In any event, the Tribunal does not find it to be corroborative evidence that Islamist extremists were trying to run him off the road, or kill him for the reasons stated.
The police reports of 21 and 23 December relate to the same event in which [Mr E], an employee of the applicant’s husband, reported that four persons wanted to know where the applicant’s husband was and what his address was. [Mr E] states that he does not know who the four people were, but they warned him that they were going to hurt the applicant’s husband. The second report is [Mr E] returning to the police station to confirm with them that he was unable to discover the names of the four men.
The Tribunal gives this report no weight as corroborative evidence. It is not evidence that the four men were Islamist extremists seeking to kill the applicant’s husband, his children or his wife for the reasons claims.
The Tribunal has also considered the letter from [Father B] of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria dated [in] December 2018.
[Father B] states that he has known the family of the applicant since 2000. He states that he can confirm in 2002 the applicant’s sister went missing from the family and later it turned out that she had converted to Islam. The Tribunal notes that [Father B] does not state how he came to know that. What he doesn’t say is that the applicant’s sister was abducted and forced to convert to Islam. In the Tribunal’s mind [Father B] is giving an account of events as provided to him by the applicant or her friends and family.
[Father B] also states that he later learned that the applicant’s sister returned and wanted to get back to Christianity. He states that the husband of the applicant’s sister comes from a family of fanatics, and it could therefore result in violence if she re-converted to Christianity. The Tribunal accepts that a re-conversion would be extremely difficult and fraught. The Tribunal does find it interesting that [Father B] appears to know the family of [Alias A]’s husband, calling them fanatics. It seems to the Tribunal that if [Father B] knew the family, then he would also have been able to form a view as to whether [Alias A] had been abducted or if the conversion was forced and mention that. He seems to indicate that there was no abduction, just that re-conversions are difficult.
The Tribunal accepts that [Father B] has provided the letter in good faith based on information provided by the applicant and/or her family and friends. However, it is not, in the view of the Tribunal, corroborative evidence of the applicants account of events and therefore the Tribunal gives it little weight.
[Father B] has also provided another letter dated 11 March 2023. In that letter [Father B] continues to counsel the applicant and her family not to return to Egypt. He states that militants still harass our children and create problems. He recounts an incident where a priest in Alexandria was killed in broad daylight at the hands of a militant person. He states his opinion is that the return of the applicant and her family shall put their lives in danger which may extend to affect the church itself.
The Tribunal has considered this document carefully and if [Father B] is speaking broadly of the problems which affect Christians in Egypt, then the Tribunal accepts that there are shocking incidents of abuse and harm that do occur. However, the Tribunal does not accept that this letter from [Father B] corroborates the applicant’s account of events of the alleged harm she and her family suffered or fear, or her claims for protection.
The Tribunal has also considered the letter from [Father C] from the Coptic Church in Canberra dated [in] March 2023. [Father C] states that he has been in contact with [Father B] who told him that the information in his letter is true and correct. However, for the reasons above, the Tribunal does not consider that this is a corroboration of the applicant’s claims.
The applicant has also provided two photographs of a woman with some facial injuries. She claims that this woman is her sister, and this is evidence that she is being beaten by her husband because she is trying to convert back to Christianity. There is no indication when these photos were taken or who the woman is. She is assuredly injured. The Tribunal does not consider these photographs as corroborative evidence of the applicant’s account or of her claims.
The Tribunal has considered the documentation that the applicant has provided which is intended to prove that the applicant’s sister converted to Islam. The Tribunal notes that the applicant claimed that they discovered that [Alias A] had converted to Islam when their father went to change the family registration details in around February 2003. The document however was issued [in] October 2008.
There was a discussion in the hearing about why the applicant’s father would seek such a document and the Tribunal was told that family registrations were changed all the time when the composition of the family changed. However, the document does not include the names of anyone else except the children of the applicant’s father and that has not changed over the relevant period and the Tribunal has concerns about its reliability. Be that as it may, even if the document is reliable, it is not corroborative evidence that even if [Alias A] converted to Islam, that the conversion was forced.
The applicant’s husband told the Tribunal that those people who sought him out had connections in the system in Egypt and its impossible for them to be safe. He gave no further explanation of what this meant. He said that he witnessed two incidents where Christians were killed, and their family homes destroyed. He said that he didn’t want to wait around to see his family killed. He said he had nightmares about seeing his son slaughtered. He said they lived like princes and princesses when they were in Egypt, and he did not want to leave to come to Australia and work as an Uber driver. He said that he was respected and wealthy in Alexandria and had his name on the buildings that he constructed with his firm.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why she was the person making the protection application when, on her account of events, she did not appear to have been the target of any harm. The Tribunal put to her that it appeared that her husband had been the one targeted. They told the Tribunal that they made their own application and didn’t really know what to do. They did not engage the assistance of their current representative until they received the decision from the department.
The Tribunal asked the parties, including the representative if it had anything else to add or any further evidence or submissions that they wanted to provide. They said that they had put all the relevant submissions to the Tribunal.
Findings and reasons
For the reasons below the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s sister was abducted or kidnapped or forced into an Islamic marriage or that she disappeared from the family life at all or that even if she had converted to Islam, they were being persecuted for helping her to reconvert to Christianity.
It seems to the Tribunal that it’s much more likely that the whole family continued to live in Alexandria and remained in communication. Despite the Tribunal pressing the applicant and her husband into giving a more detailed account of what happened, the parties were either unwilling or unable to expand upon the limited evidence they had given.
The applicant’s account was perfunctory, lacking in detail and spontaneity. It did not appear to come from a recollection of lived events, but rather a recitation of an account contrived to fit in with actual events, such as, for example, the accident involving the sister of her husband and the traffic incident involving the applicant’s husband.
The applicant gave no credible account of the circumstances surrounding the discovery that her sister was missing or why, or indeed how they came to form the view that she was missing; or where they searched or why they thought she had disappeared. At the time of her disappearance, it is claimed that no one knew what happened to her and the applicant did not give an account which indicated that the family were concerned about [Alias A]. It was not until a year later that they found out about her alleged conversion. Yet they did not report her disappearance to the police, the Church or indeed anyone else.
The Tribunal does not accept that the police would not have listened to a report of a disappearance of a young woman who also allegedly left a young child behind. They may not have had the resources to mount a proper investigation or search, but the Tribunal does not accept that if her sister had indeed disappeared, the applicant, or someone in the family, including perhaps her husband, would not have made a report to the police. It is also for these reasons that the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that after the alleged disappearance of [Alias A], the applicant and her family cut off communications with [Alias A]’s husband and son.

More importantly, the applicant did not at any time indicate that her sister had told her that she had been abducted or forced to marry a Muslim man. The applicant states that her conversations with [Alias A] were about her coming back to Christianity. It seems to the Tribunal that in their alleged fortnightly meetings over the course of around 18 months after their reunion in 2016, there might have been some discussion about what happened to her at the time of her disappearance, in particular that she had been abducted and forced to marry a Muslim man, and also some discussion about how she planned to reconvert.
Furthermore, if [Alias A] was indeed forced into a marriage the Tribunal finds it unlikely that she would not have found a way to communicate that with her sister or parents at some time during the 14 years. Nobody has suggested that [Alias A] was imprisoned or deprived of communication with the outside world. Indeed, [Alias A] was at the hospital with the applicant’s sister-in-law and was able to use a mobile phone to contact her sister and meet with her and her mother several times in public.
Nor did the applicant seek to obtain any statement from her sister to support her assertions or attend the Tribunal to give her own account of what happened. The Tribunal notes that when this was put to the applicant, she said that it was dangerous for her sister to get involved.
The applicant was unable to provide an account that persuaded the Tribunal her sister had disappeared for 14 years and that they were coincidentally reunited at the bedside of her husband’s sister after a motor vehicle accident. It was not a coincidence; it was a convenient event in which to retrofit a narrative that is simply not true.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s sister was abducted or forced to convert to Islam or forced to marry a Muslim man by Islamist fanatics. The claim was advanced towards the end of the hearing by [Mr D], but not by the applicant or her family either in prior written submissions or orally at the hearing. The applicant’s husband merely stated that Islamists were involved in trying to get them killed, not that they were involved in forcibly converting [Alias A] to Islam.
The Tribunal accepts that Christian and women are and have been abducted and forced to convert to Islam and marry Muslim men. The article in the country information above suggests that it happens all too frequently with some 500 cases in the past decade.
Such abductions are reported in the media frequently however the applicant and her family did not report that they feared [Alias A] had been abducted and forced to convert to Islam at the time of her alleged disappearance, or subsequently, to the police, their Church, the media, or humanitarian or human rights organisations. The account of a [Alias A]’s abduction and forced conversion appears to be a claim that has been raised to support their application for protection.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s sister disappeared. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s sister was abducted and forced to convert to Islam, or that she was forced to marry a Muslim man. The Tribunal does not therefore accept that the applicant’s husband was targeted for serious harm by unnamed Islamists at his business or in his car or that police have failed to provide them protection or that his wife and his children are at real risk of harm for the reason claimed.
It also follows that the Tribunal also does not accept that the family moved from house to house in Alexandria before fleeing to Cairo because they feared harm from Islamicists or from anybody else.
The Tribunal has considered whether [Alias A], regardless or how she came to have converted to Islam and regardless of the truth of any of the other claims made by the applicant, nevertheless wants to reconvert to Christianity. The reason that the applicant and her family have been targeted for harm is because they were encouraging her to reconvert.
The Tribunal does not accept this account. It seems to the Tribunal that if [Alias A] had indeed converted to Islam and wanted to reconvert to Christianity with the encouragement of her sister, then they could have gone directly to the Church to discuss it with them. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that [Alias A] and the applicant approached the church to discuss how she could reconvert. Indeed, [Father B] did not indicate that he had been approached either at the time or subsequently by [Alias A] or the applicant to get further information about what she needed to do to reconvert and how she would need to proceed. Some seven years later [Alias A] has still not approached the Church to reconvert to Christianity.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the process might be difficult and may attract negative attention from Islamists if a reconversion was known. However, the fact appears to be that neither [Alias A] nor the applicant had even asked the question of the Church, either [Father B] or some other Church official, about how to proceed with a reconversion. It seems to the Tribunal that any approach would have been kept in confidence and there would therefore have been no danger to [Alias A] or the applicant.

100. The Tribunal has also turned its mind to whether a purely private discussion between [Alias A] and her sister, overheard by [Alias A]’s husband would lead to the kind of repercussions that the applicant has claimed. The Tribunal does not accept that, if [Alias A] was indeed considering reconverting to Christianity whilst still married to a Muslim man, that she would have had that discussion with the applicant on the phone at her home with her husband present. It defies logic. [Alias A] had many opportunities to discuss the matter with the applicant privately at the applicant’s home, if indeed there was ever any discussion of the matter at all.
101. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or any member of her family was helping the applicant’s sister reconvert to Christianity.
102. On the basis of the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution or that she and her family have been, are or will be targeted for significant harm for the reasons claimed should they be required to return to Egypt.
103. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant and or her husband have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of their religion as Coptic Christians in Egypt. This wasn’t specifically claimed by them, but the Tribunal believes it is implied.
104. The applicant’s husband has said that there is state-sanctioned terrorism against Christians in Egypt and that he and his family will be killed if they have to return.
105. The Tribunal notes that the DFAT information, which the parties have heard when it was put to the applicant by the delegate and which appears in the delegate’s decision, indicates that Coptic Christians in Egypt are discriminated against and there are flare ups of sectarian violence during which Christians and their churches are targeted for harm and in some incidents, there have been a significant number of deaths. The applicant and her husband have told the Tribunal that they had a financially successful and happy life in Egypt; they were treated as princes and princesses until after they allegedly reconnected with the applicant’s sister in 2016. They were not targeted on the basis of their Christianity in the past.
106. The applicant however has not indicated that she has been harmed on the basis of her Christianity. Equally she has not claimed that her children have suffered any harm. The Tribunal notes that she has however claimed that she and her family have been targeted for harm by reason of allegedly assisting her sister to convert back to Christianity. Being targeted for harm simply by reason of their Christianity is possibly an integer of that claim. However, as the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s account of her sister’s disappearance is a fabrication, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s account that she and her children have been targeted for that reason.
107. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant or her family will be targeted for serious harm for any other convention-related reason.
108. The Tribunal does note that the applicant’s husband has some significant health issues with his heart and that he is likely to have to face heart surgery again soon. This was considered during the hearing and the applicant’s husband was consulted regularly about his capacity to continue. He was an enthusiastic participant in the hearing and did not complain of any ill health. Whilst the Tribunal is concerned about the applicant’s health and the ongoing stress he may face because of its decision on the protection application of his wife, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his health constitutes a reason for protection. It has not been claimed, and, in any case, the application before the Tribunal has not been made by him.
CONCLUSION
109. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a). As the applicant does not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa, it follows that the other applicants do not meet the criteria set out in s 36(2)(b) and cannot be granted the visa.
110. The Tribunal has turned its mind to whether or not there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that that the applicant will suffer significant harm. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will suffer harm for the reasons claimed or for any other reason should she be required to return to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
111. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant meets the criteria set out in s.36(2)(aa). As the applicant does not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa, it follows that the other applicants do not meet the criteria set out in s 36(2)(c) and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
112. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Ann Duffield
Senior 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.
…

[2023] AATA 2440

14 April 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction