1835719 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. A and Mrs. B against a delegate's decision to refuse their applications for protection visas. The applicants, who are Coptic Christians from Egypt, claimed they feared harm upon return due to their religion and alleged incidents including an assault in August 2015 and being forced to sell their home to the Muslim Brotherhood. The delegate had rejected these claims, finding that communal violence had decreased and that Copts in urban areas could seek police protection, ultimately concluding there was no real chance or risk of harm to the applicants if they returned to Egypt.

The court was required to determine whether Mr. A and Mrs. B had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of their religion or membership of a particular social group, specifically Coptic Christians in Egypt. This involved assessing both the subjective fear held by the applicants and the objective likelihood of them suffering harm upon return, considering the available country information and the evidence presented regarding the alleged incidents. The court also had to consider the credibility of the applicants' claims, particularly in light of inconsistencies and concerns raised about the authenticity of submitted documents.

The court applied the well-founded fear test, which requires both subjective and objective elements. It considered evidence from the DFAT Country Information Report Egypt, as well as information from the UK Home Office and the US Department of State. Significant concerns were raised regarding the authenticity of the medical reports provided by the applicants to substantiate their alleged injuries from the August 2015 assault, including discrepancies in signatures and the absence of official letterhead. The court found that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution, noting that they could obtain protection from the authorities and that their evidence contained credibility concerns.

The decision under review was affirmed.