1831966 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he feared persecution in Egypt due to his desertion from a government-controlled shipping company. He alleged inhumane working conditions, inadequate food and medicine, and unsafe environments on the vessel. The applicant further claimed that his desertion, coupled with perceived moral support for the Muslim Brotherhood, would lead the Egyptian authorities to view him as an enemy of the current military government, resulting in torture, degrading, inhuman, and cruel treatment.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which concerns being a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which relates to complementary protection obligations where there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The court also considered the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," "significant harm," and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face a real risk of significant harm, as outlined in the Act and relevant guidelines.

The court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, the court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there were no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Egypt, he would suffer significant harm. The court also noted that the applicant did not qualify as a family member of someone who met these criteria.