1835748 (Refugee)
[2022] AATA 2420
•28 June 2022
1835748 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 2420 (28 June 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Carina Ford (MARN: 9802862)
CASE NUMBER: 1835748
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Egypt
MEMBER:Peter Vlahos
DATE:28 June 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
This Statement was made on 28th June 2022 at 3.00PM
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – particular social group – Coptic Christian woman – threats from Muslim extremists – disputes with Muslim neighbours – opposition to local mosque’s activities – physical and sexual assault – detention – employment – anti-Christian violence – gender-based violence – state protection – internal relocation – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 91, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2CASES
Alamdar v MIMA [2001] FCA 1244
Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225
Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293
Lama v MIMA (1999) 57 ALD 613
SZDNE v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 717
Wang v MIMA (2000) 105 FCR 548
Weheliye v MIMA [2001] FCA 1222
Zheng Jia Cai v MIMA (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, French J, 13 June 1997)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 30 November 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 20 May 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the application for Protection visa did not satisfy sub-section 36(2) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 June 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s sister [Sister A]. 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. The representative attended the Tribunal 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 Australia has protection obligations in respect of [the applicant]. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Country of origins and nationality
Based on a copy of the applicant’s passport, which was provided to the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) and to the Tribunal at the hearing and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of the Arab Republic of Egypt and has had her claims (as presented) assessed against that country in relation to their claims made pursuant to ss. 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act and on the basis of this evidence currently before the Tribunal, the Tribunal further find and concludes that the applicant’s identity is as is claimed for the purposes of this decision.
Department File before the Tribunal
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant’s application for Protection visa. The Tribunal also has had regard to the material and information referred to in the delegate’s decision record. The applicant a copy of this decision record to the Tribunal with her application to Review the Department’s decision.
Background – the Applicant’s migration/visa history
[In] December 2015 the applicant arrived on a [Visitor] visa. On 20 May 2016 the applicant applied for a XA-866 Protection visa and was granted the associated Bridging visa granted.
The applicant is [an age]-year-old female (DOB, [specified]) born in Cairo, Egypt. She claims that she briefly transited through [Country 1] before arriving in Australia but has not travelled to any other country. She identifies as Coptic Orthodox Christian. The applicant’s parents are both deceased. The applicant claims to be now retired, but previously had worked as [an occupation 1], cared for mother and served at a local church (when living in Egypt). The applicant claims that her education level is that of having completed her secondary school level education and completed a [further qualification].
The applicant’s claims for Protection
The applicant provided the Department with the following claims:[1]
[1] see, Department of Home Affairs File [number], applicant’s Application for Protection visa. See also decision record dated 28 November 2018.
§The applicant left Egypt for Australia to seek protection from Muslim extremists, Salafists and her Muslim neighbours due to her Coptic Orthodox Christian religion;
§the applicant specifically fears harm from harassment, false allegations and threats against her life and personal safety;
§the applicant in particular fears harm from her Muslim neighbours, [Neighbour A] and her son, [Neighbour B]. The applicant also fears harm from [Neighbour B’s] family;
§the applicant and her family received threats and harm from Muslim neighbours who reside in her building. The applicant’s Muslim neighbours attend an unofficial mosque, which is run by a group of fundamentalists. The group is known for kidnapping Christian girls and forcing them to convert to Islam in order for them to get married to Muslim men;
§the applicant lives close to a mosque and finds it difficult to lead a Christian life. During Muslim prayers, clerics of the mosque direct sound from speakers towards their apartment. A single wall separates the Muslim prayer hall and her building. Muslims buy adjacent shops and buildings in an effort to extend their prayer space;
§the applicant’s family owns one of three apartments near the mosque, which are occupied by both Christians and Muslims. Local Muslims and clerics regularly set up mats and carpets in front of building with speakers directed towards Christian occupants. Cars cannot part in the street during prayer times. Prayer times can sometimes be scheduled at 3 am or 4 am. Consequently, the applicant complains of sleep depravation “like torture;”
§the applicant suffered ongoing disputes with local Muslims for over 20 years. The applicant has a pending legal dispute with [Neighbour A] and [Neighbour B], who are living unlawfully in the building;
§three Muslim occupants, [Neighbour A], [Neighbour B] and [Neighbour C], live close to the applicant. [Neighbour C] is close friends with the cleric of the local mosque;
§the Muslim occupants invited strangers into the building. They convened at street corners and harassed and made fake reports to police about the applicant. The applicant’s car was scratch and dented from stones, and also her windscreen and headlights were smashed;
§the Muslim prayer building depicted signatures of members of a local Muslim gang on their walls, including [Neighbour B]. The applicant described [Neighbour B] as “a callous and dangerous man” . The applicant believes [Neighbour B] targeted the applicant because of her Christian beliefs;
§the applicant claims that in May 1996, an argument ensued between [Neighbour B] and the applicant’s sister, [named], which resulted in her had being stabbed. Police recorded a statement about the incident; however, [Neighbour B] continues to live in the applicant’s building;
§the applicant stated police in Egypt are not effective. In early 2005, [Neighbour B] harassed the applicant’s sister, [Sister B]. When police attended the scene, they did not take a statement, but cautioned the applicant to be careful because of sensitive issues between Christians and Muslims and risk of such issues could be escalated to the National Security Department;
§[In] January 2005, [Neighbour B] claimed the applicant’s brother, [Brother A], assaulted and left him hospitalised in the “[named] Hospital.” The applicant states [Neighbour B] made false allegations against [Brother A] because police failed to find evidence of his admission to hospital;
§[in] January 2005, [Neighbour A] made another false allegation against [Brother A]. She claimed the [Brother A] physically and verbally assaulted her. He was summoned to court but failed to appear for questioning because he never received a court notice. The applicant states that police can be bribed not to deliver court notices. [Brother A] was arrested and taken briefly into custody before being released. The judge mentioned claims against [Brother A] were fabricated;
§in November 2007, [Neighbour B] made false allegations of assault against [Brother A] and the applicant’s [sisters], [named]. [Neighbour B] claimed these family members pushed and caused him injury. The applicant disputed these claims because her sister, [Sister B], at the time of the alleged incident had been in Australia. The applicant attached to her application a police report and medical report, dated [in] July 2007, which confirmed the fact that [Neighbour B] sustained injuries from a motor car accident and not an assault;
§in August 2007, [Neighbour A] made a further police statement to corroborate that her son, [Neighbour B], was involved in a car accident. The applicant said that her Muslim neighbours would go to any lengths to ensure she does not lead a free and happy life. The applicant believes the false allegations are intended to torture her family and make them suffer;
§in September 2012, [Mr A] threw a block the entire street with marques and set up speakers and prayer mat outside her apartment;
§in the applicant’s neighbourhood, Muslim clerics push their beliefs on Christians and treat them as ‘Qafara’ or infidels. The cleric of the local mosque approached the applicant’s brother, [Brother B], and asked whether he wanted to pray with him during Muslim prayers. The applicant believes, like her brother, that Muslims treat Christians with lower status. She cannot bear the “constant pressure of converting to Islam” facing her every day;
§the applicant feels her family are not safe in Egypt because of the surrounding danger. She could not leave Egypt immediately because of her mother’s ill health and the guilt of abandoning the rest of her family. Her mother passed away in July 2011. During the Hosni Mubarak regime, the applicant states Coptic Orthodox Christians experienced harassment and discrimination. After the Mubarak regime, the applicant though law and order would improve un Egypt and so her family remained there, however the impracticalities and expenses associated with such a move prevent this. As an alternative, she considered moving to her older brother’s home, however that house is too small and already accommodated her brother’s wife and [children]; and
§the applicant is afraid to speak up or even defend her legal rights in her community because she may insult Islam or be answerable to the National Security Department. As ‘a Christian woman’, the applicant refrained from seeking assistance from police because it causes her undue fear and anxiety.
The applicant made a statutory declaration on 16 May 2016 and the Tribunal noted the contents of those declarations.[2]
[2] see, Department of Home Affairs File [number]
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING
The applicant told the Tribunal that she arrived in Australia on a Tourist visa [in] December 2015.
The applicant confirmed for the Tribunal that when living in Egypt, she resided (with her sister) in a family-owned apartment in a suburb of Cairo.
The applicant said that she and her parent had lived in this apartment for over forty years.
The applicant said that while she was living in Egypt she worked as ‘team leader’ of employees of the ‘[Employer 1]’ for eighteen years.
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal – why did her employment end with [Employer 1]? The applicant explained that she was carrying out her practical work – [specified]. The applicant her level of education at the time did not allow her for further advancement within the [business].
The applicant said that while in Australia, the applicant is studying [a course] while also working at a local [business].
The applicant was asked – what caused you to leave Egypt? The applicant said he came to Australia on a tourist visa because in Egypt she faced ‘many problems.’ The applicant said that she was ‘living in a Salafi neighbourhood.’ The applicant went on to tell the Tribunal, that opposite and close to her apartment operated a mosque. The applicant went on to tell the Tribunal that when prayers were conducted the ‘speakers’ were ‘very close’ to her apartment and could not exist in peace.
The applicant said that she and other members of her family and other Christians in her neighbourhood were constantly ‘denounced’ as ‘infidels’ and accused of being ‘blasphemers’ against the ‘true faith’. This situation caused the applicant and her other family members to fear for their wellbeing and peaceful existence.
The applicant said that the mosque official constantly encouraged the other Muslims to be ‘hostile’ and ‘threatening’ to the applicant, her other family members and to Christians generally in the neighbourhood.
The applicant also described the mosque in her neighbourhood as one which organised and supported the ‘kidnapping of Christians.’ The applicant then told the Tribunal that ‘her family knew a family (of Christian faith) who were badly persecuted, and a ‘female’ of that family was eventually ‘kidnapped’ and ‘raped’. This incident occurred in 2004.
The applicant was asked – how had she been living at this apartment? The applicant said that she was living [at this apartment] ‘all of her life’ and has always had had (her family) ‘issues with this mosque.’
The Tribunal asked the applicant – do Christians and Muslims not co-exist? The applicant said that there have been ‘a lot of tensions.’
The applicant said that many Christians have moved out of the suburb because of intimidation by Muslims. The applicant explained that her family had not moved out of the suburb because ‘economically cannot do this…’ The applicant said that her family had tolerated the Muslim intimidation, but it had become too difficult in later years.
The applicant was asked to explain – what issue or [issues] caused her not to return to Egypt? The applicant said that ‘the situation in Egypt is becoming bad…the situation is much worse in Egypt today…’
The applicant said that both she and her family lived always with the overbearing presence of their Muslim neighbours around them. The applicant told the Tribunal that some in her neighbourhood had become tired of the intimidation and had ‘converted to Islam’. Others, the applicant said who lived ‘closer to the mosque’ had sold their properties or surrendered their leases and had left to go to other suburbs.
The incidents in 1990s
The applicant recalled certain incidents that had occurred with her neighbours which caused her and her family issues.
The applicant described to the Tribunal a violent argument between her sister [named] and the [Muslim neighbour] [Neighbour B] [in] May 1996. That argument resulted according to the applicant in her sister being stabbed in the hand. The applicant said that her sister was ascending the ‘stairs to the apartment’ when she met with [Neighbour B] who ‘refused to let her pass’ and then ‘hit her on the hand with something sharp…’ The applicant that the injury on her sister’s hand required ‘three stiches…’
The incident – false reports to the police concerning her brother
The applicant told the Tribunal that [in] January 2005 [Neighbour A], ([Neighbour B’s] mother) made a false police report against her brother for ‘physically and verbally assaulting her…’ What followed according to the applicant was a another ‘false report’ this made on [the previous day], by [Neighbour B] against the applicant’s brother [Brother A] which ‘claimed that [Brother A] had assaulted and caused injury to [Neighbour B].’
Inaction by the police
The applicant told the Tribunal that when [Neighbour B] harassed her sister [Sister B] in early 2005, ‘the police were unhelpful’ when the applicant’s sister ‘tried to report the incident.’ The applicant said that the police usually supported ‘the perpetrator’ than ‘the victim’ because the perpetrators are ‘Muslims’ and ‘when her sister made a formal complaint to the police’ the police ‘did not take her seriously.’
Damage to property and the family car
The applicant told the Tribunal that she made a police statement ‘in relation to property damage to her family car’ which occurred [in] September 2012. The applicant told the Tribunal that [Mr A] had ‘thrown a sizeable block onto the car’s roof’ and had also ‘damaged the cars windscreen.’ The applicant said that regardless of reporting this matter to the police, the police took little action or interest. The applicant said she had little confidence in the police to provide her with any real protection.
Noise and other interferences during Muslim prayer times
The applicant said that the practices of the local mosque in her neighbourhood forced her to live a very ‘restricted’ lifestyle. The applicant said that speakers ‘used during the Muslim prayer times’ were ‘intentionally directed at [the applicant’s] apartment’ which caused her much distress, disquiet and concerns.
The applicant said that the local Muslims would set up prayer mats under the marque in front of her apartment block. The local street would become ‘blocked’ before ‘their’ (the Muslims’) Eid El Fetr and Eid El Adha and ‘continue’ ‘until after the Eid.’ The applicant recalled that ‘cars are blocked from entering and existing the street.’ The applicant said that prayers ‘are scheduled in the mornings at 3 or 4 am’ and this practice prevented the applicant from ‘getting proper sleep before going to work.’
Discrimination at the applicant’s place of employment
The applicant told the Tribunal that she ‘experienced discrimination’ at ‘her work’ also. The applicant told the Tribunal that while working ‘a Muslim man approached her’ and told her ‘one day Allah will work his hand and she will wear a hijab and be enlightened.’ The applicant explained that in Egypt ‘Christian women’ are easily identified by not the fact that they do not wear ‘the hijab’ and ‘according to the teachings of Islam’ ‘Christian women are considered as ‘Qafara’ (which means ‘infidels’).
The applicant told the Tribunal (as previously stated) that she worked at [Employer 1] (in Cairo) for eighteen (18) years. In that time the applicant told the Tribunal, the management of the [business] had ‘overlooked her for a promotion’ because ‘of her religion’ (being a Coptic Orthodox Christian). By contrast, the applicant explained to the Tribunal, other employees ‘with [even] less experience and qualifications’ than the applicant ‘were promoted several times’ by the applicant’s ‘Muslim bosses’ (management).
The applicant saw very little prospects of her being considered for any increased responsibilities at her place of employment and the primary reason was the fact that she was a Christian woman. The applicant believed that discrimination on religious grounds was a factor and would always be an issue in her attempts to find a better employment and better level of pay while in Egypt.
The applicant’s concerns for the future
The applicant said that during the Mubarak regime, harassment and discrimination based on religion and gender had ‘increased significantly.’ The applicant told the Tribunal that her family ‘wanted to leave Egypt’ but could not do so because ‘her mother (who was still alive then) was ill’ and the applicant ‘could not abandon her mother.’ When her mother passed away in 2011, it was in that time that the Mubarak regime had fallen from power, but things did not improve.
The applicant recalled for the Tribunal the tragic events of 9 October 2011 when ‘[the] armed forces massacred Coptic Orthodox Christians, and 28 peaceful protesters were killed with 212 people injured.’ The applicant also recalled that during the ‘Muslim Brotherhood era, harassment and discrimination escalated against Christians’.
The applicant explained that while she would like to ‘seek safety’ in ‘another part of Egypt’, it was ‘difficult for her to sell the house and relocate.’ The applicant ‘considered staying with her brother’ ([named]) however, ‘her brother lives in a small apartment and would find it difficult to accommodate seven additional persons.’
The applicant said that she ‘fears that she will be mistreated for her religious beliefs’ and ‘will continue (if she returned to Egypt) living without the support or protection from police or the government.’ The said that she was ‘afraid to exercise her rights’ ‘out of fear’ of being accused of ‘insulting Islam.’ The applicant is afraid that ‘one day’ her Muslim neighbour, [Neighbour B] ‘may cross a line to harm her.’
Evidence from the applicant’s sister
The applicant’s sister entertained similar concerns as presented by the applicant.
She told the Tribunal that though there has been a change in Egypt’s government since Sisi took over office from Morsi (and Muslim Brotherhood) the situation remains tense and difficult in the suburbs where she and her sister live. The sister told the Tribunal that no matter what the government does in the name of security – generally, Christians – Coptic Orthodox Christians and in particular when their gender is female, have no real feeling of security.
The sister confirmed for the Tribunal the circumstances and incidents which her sister identified to the Tribunal that had troubled both and in particular the issues they have had to deal with the local mosque and the actions of their militant neighbour, [Neighbour B].
The sister said that even if the police intervenes in a situation, nothing really changes because ‘deep down’ these people a Muslims and care very little for a Christian who has been intimidated by local Muslims and when threatened. In particular, the sister said being a female and known Christian making an issue about a local mosque’s abuse of its right to operate does not endear her to her neighbours who are predominantly Muslims.
The sister confirmed the evidence of the applicant that moving to another suburb was difficult because of the economics involved for both sisters.
The sister said always, both she and her sister, were warned by the local priest to be careful coming to church. That was not the way she wished or could live. Matters in Australia are better, and her life hear with her sisters is better and more secure than in Egypt now or in the future.
The sister told the Tribunal she was happy in Australia – more than she could ever be in Egypt.
COUNTRY INFORMATION – EGYPT – The Rule of Law – Religion – Christian Orthodox Copts – Status of Women and Women rights in Egypt
The Tribunal has considered the most recent Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) country regarding the situation in Egypt[3] including the situation for Coptic Orthodox Christians and the rights of women.
[3] DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt 17 June 2019
Coptic Christians comprise some 10 percent of Egypt’s population of 83 million. They are present in most parts of the country and are represented at all levels of society. Copts have access to all levels of education and are present in most areas of employment. However, Copts have long faced some degree of societal discrimination. Few Copts hold senior positions in institutions such as the military, universities, and the public service. There is also sporadic harassment of Christians in some areas, for example targeting women with uncovered hair. Discrimination and prejudice are more of a problem in poorer urban and rural areas.
The Egyptian Constitution recognises Christianity, along with Islam and Judaism and grants Copts the same rights and freedoms as other Egyptians.
However, Egypt is overwhelmingly a Sunni Muslim country and Egyptian laws and longstanding practices are generally designed to safeguard the majority. The two problems mentioned most frequently as impacting on Christian practice are restrictions on building or repairing churches and the operation of laws banning “ridiculing or insulting heavenly religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) or inciting sectarian strife”, commonly referred to as blasphemy law.
Sectarian tensions have increased in Egypt since the 1970s, due in part to economic problems and to weakening of law-and-order mechanisms. The resulting outbreaks of sectarian violence have mostly taken the form of vandalism and the destruction of property and have mostly taken the form of vandalism and destruction of property and have occurred mostly in Upper Egypt, although Cairo and Alexandria have also been affected.
Egypt has experienced a number of significant changes in recent years. The Mubarak regime was overthrown in January 2011 and was replaced with a military council which ruled until elections were held in June 2012, which were won by Mohammad Morsi of the Moslem Brotherhood. Morsi’s government was removed by the military in July 2013 and replaced with a military dominated interim government which banned the Moslem Brotherhood in December 2013 and arrested between 22,000 and 29,000 Muslim Brotherhood supporters or suspected members, of whom some 7,000 remained in pre-trial detention in July 2014.[4] Elections held in May 2014 saw former defence Minister Abdul Fatah Sisi elected President of Egypt.
[4] Immigration Report at pp. 49-50 and Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2015, available at
>
While there is no evidence of a significant increase in sectarian violence during the time Morsi was President, there was an increase in the number of ultra-conservative Islamist groups such as Salafist parties and the frequency of negative and sometimes inflammatory anti-Christian statements which in turn contributed to an increase of threats and attacks on Christian communities in some areas.[5]
[5] Issues Paper Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christians & State Protection, Department of Immigration and Border
Protection, 3 March 2012 [Immigration Report] pp. 54-55 and DFAT Thematic Report at paragraph [3.36].
Coptic Christians were greatly concerned about their future under the Islamist government and most welcomed the military intervention which removed Morsi. This contributed to the most serious outbreak of anti-Christian sectarian violence in recent times, which occurred in July and August 2013 when supporters of President Morsi attacked Christian churches, property and people. According to DFAT this violence was not orchestrated by the leadership of the Moslem Brotherhood but was carried out by radical supporters of the group in retaliation for what they saw was the significant role Christians played in Morsi’s removal from office.
According to DFAT there has been a significant decrease in the scale and number of attacks against Copts under the Sisi administration. In a similar vein the US Committee for international Religious Freedom 2015, which covers 2014 and early 2015 stated that, while sporadic violence continued, the number and severity of violent incidents targeting Copts and their property had decreased significantly since the previous year.
In their Thematic Report of November 2015, DFAT stated that it was their assessment that
the day-to-day life for most Coptic Christians was not overtly affected by communal tensions
adding that:“…most Egyptians, especially those living in urban areas, work, live and socialise with little
regard to each other’s religious identity. However, small-scale disputes (such as neighbourhood disagreements) can adopt religious overtones and escalate into community- level violence. This is particularly the case in poorer rural and urban areas. Spikes in communal tensions can also coincide with broader political upheavals.[6]
[6] Issues Paper Egypt: Treatment of Coptic Christians & State Protection, Department of Immigration and Border
Protection, 3 March 2012 {Immigration Report} at pp. 54-55 and DFAT Thematic Report at paragraph [3.36].
Similarly, after reviewing information from a range of sources the UK Border Agency concluded in its Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians Report dated 30 June 2014, “although Christians do face personal and collective societal discrimination and repeated instances of sectarian violence, Christians in Egypt are not in general at risk of persecution or ill-treatment.”[7]
[7] Country Information and Guidance Egypt: ‘Christians’, UK Border Agency, 30 June 2014, at pp. 7-8, available atHowever, the most recent United States International Religious Freedom Report10 indicates that the Egyptian government failed to respond to or prevent sectarian violence in some cases, in particular outside of major cities according to human rights advocates. It (the Egyptian government) continued to hold “reconciliation sessions” to address incidents of sectarian violence which adopted findings favouring members of the majority Muslim community most of the time. “Reconciliation sessions” after sectarian attacks were used instead of prosecuting perpetrators and these sessions precluded recourse to the judicial system because in most cases the parties agreed to drop charges and lawsuits and stipulated by the terms of the session. They failed to prosecute in some instances. It was also reported that religious minorities continued to face significant threats of sectarian violence according to religious and human rights groups. There were also reports of lethal sectarian violence continuing over the year.
The November 2015 Thematic Report also indicates that Copts have access to state protection in Egypt. According to that report:
“DFAT assesses that on a day-to-day basis in urban areas; the state has the capacity and
willingness to provide protection to the Copts, and generally does so. Copts facing
harassment are able to go to a local police station for protection in these areas. DFAT
assesses that, under the Sisi Government, the security services see it as being in their interest
to be responsive to Coptic grievances. However, societal discrimination may impact on the level of protection offered to Copts by individual security officials.”
Nevertheless, in December 2016, a suicide bomber targeted a church service adjoining St Mark’s Cathedral in Cairo, killing 29 and injuring 49. Following the previous attacks of February 2017 in el Arish, IS (Islamic State) claimed responsibility for two major attacks against Palm Sunday church services on 9 April 2017. The first attack occurred at a service in Tanta, killing 27 people and injuring over 70. The second attack occurred at a cathedral in Alexandria. At least 16 people were killed, and 66 people were injured in the Alexandria attack: Pope Tardos was saying mass at the cathedral at the time but escaped unharmed. In May 2017, in Minya, a gunman ambushed three buses and killed 29 people who refused to renounce their faith. In November 2018, militants ambushed three buses carrying Christian pilgrims to a remote desert monastery south of Cairo, killing 7 and wounding 19. In addition to these attacks, security services have reportedly thwarted a number of attempted attacks.[8]
Discrimination
61. Discrimination based on religion is prohibited under Egyptian Law; however, Copts continue
to face official and societal discrimination. Amnesty International reports that it and other
human rights organisations have documented a pattern of discrimination against Coptic
Christians in Egypt that has been prevalent for ‘decades’.[9] Similarly, the EuropeanParliamentary Research Service states that Egypt’s religious minorities, including Copts, have suffered for decades from discrimination.[10][8] see, DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt, 17 June 2019, at paragraph [3.21] at p.18.
[9] Amnesty International 2013, ‘Egypt’: Security forces abandon Coptic Christians during deadly attack in Luxor,[10] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities Rights – Prospect for Improvement? January 23, at p.1: see, Accessed 29 July 2014 at p. 7 CIS27158.
Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, however, in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[11] In October 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds.[12] The decree added Article 161(ii) which defines discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief.[13] It establishes a minimum and maximum fines (from EGP30,000 (approximately, AUD$4,929.00)[14] to EGP50,000 (AUD$8,216.00)) and/or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination. The article adds more severe penalties for government officials who commit a discriminatory act,[15] with a minimum sentence of three months’ imprisonment and or a minimum fine of EGP50,000 (AUD$8,216.00) and a maximum fine of EGP100,000(AUD$16,438.00).[16] USDOS reports, however, that the amendment does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[17] The report notes that during 2013 ‘there were no indications in the media that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.[18] Similarly, the January DFAT 2014 report on Coptic Christians states that while ‘anti-discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement.’[19]
[11] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July 2014,[12] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, at p. 4[13] US State Department 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011-Egypt, 30 July, Section 2
Accessed 17 December 2013
[14] Based on foreign exchange rates of 4 February 2014 obtained from US State Department 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 30 July, Section 2
Accessed 29 July 2014CIS29206
[16] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 – Egypt, 30 July, Section 2,
Accessed 17 December 2013
[17] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4
Accessed 29 July 2014
[18] US State Department 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, at p.18[19] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7
CIS27158
The 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an antidiscrimination clause. Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief.[20] Although the Constitution reaffirms Islam as the state religion, it recognises Christianity as one of the ‘heavenly religions’ and acknowledges the Coptic Orthodox Church as an official sect of Christianity.[21] However, Minority Rights Group International states that ‘it remains to be seen whether there will be a substantive legal and policy shift towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life.’[22] Reporting on the likely effect of Constitution, the EIPR states that ‘taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt, it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.’[23]
[20] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F82D92048
[21]Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7[22] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples – Egypt:[23] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights –
Sources indicate that Copts continue to face official and societal discrimination. Several reports were located stating that despite initial optimism on the part of Copts, and public messages of support by President el-Sisi for the Coptic community, discrimination against the Copts has continued since el-Sisi was elected.[24] Regarding societal discrimination, DFAT assesses that the ‘community prejudice’ against the Copts is ‘pervasive’ but the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio-economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low-level and infrequent in middle class urban and rural areas.[25] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Moslems across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[26] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been more reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam’.[27] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination’.[28] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[29]
[24] Amin, S 2015 “What now for Egypt’s Christians?” Ahram Online, 13 January[25] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at p.7
CIS27158
[26] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at 7
CIS27158
[27] Ibid
[28] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June at p.7[29] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence,Reports published by the United States Department of State,[30] the Carnegie Endowment,[31] Open Democracy[32] and Ahram Online[33] between 2013 and 2015 all state that Copts face official discrimination in Egypt, particularly with respect to appointments to senior positions within the public sector, public universities, security forces, judiciary and Egyptian government. In its January 2014 report on Copts in Egypt, DFAT provided a somewhat different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination.[34] While reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in the public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[35] DFAT does report, however, that ‘societal discrimination can create a “glass ceiling” for promotions as ‘Copts tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles and in the upper ranks of the military and security services.’[36] According to DFAT ‘subtle favouritism and patronage could rule Copts out of senior position.’[37]
[30] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July 2014,[31] Brownlee J 2013, Violence Against Coptic Christians in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for[32] Fayek, M. 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy mina-fayek/copts-in-el-sisis-egypt Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714
[33] Ahram Online is a state-owned English language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s[34] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at p.7
CIS27158
[35] Ibid
[36] Ibid
[37] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, at p.7
CIS27158
In DFAT’s Country Information Report – Egypt, dated 17 June 2019, the Department acknowledges, that most Christians observed the post-2011 Revolution ascendency of the Moslem Brotherhood with considerable apprehension. They regarded the Morsi government’s removal and restoration of general law and order as a cause for relief, and strongly supported the ascendency of Sisi to the presidency. Many Christians and representatives of other minority faiths reported that while things could always improve, they generally consider themselves better protected under President Sisi than previous Egyptian leaders. Christian religious authorities have consistently expressed appreciation for Sisi’s public messaging which has called upon Egyptians to place national unity above religious differences, and for his personal example: in 2015, Sisi became the first Egyptian President to attend Christmas mass at the St Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Cathedral in Cairo and has attended every year since. Sisi has actively engaged with the Christian community, declaring days of national mourning or calling personally on Pope Tawadros to express his condolences following terrorist attacks against Christians. Local sources report that Christians generally remain strong supporters of Sisi, although (like other Egyptians) their initial enthusiasm has waned due to the lack of economic improvement and ongoing social difficulties in Egypt.[38]
In its 2019 country report, DFAT assesses that Christians face a moderate risk of discrimination that is more likely to be societal than official in nature and is likely to vary considerably according to geographic location. Christians, particularly in rural areas, may face difficulty in obtaining justice through legal means. Despite the lack of any official policy of discrimination, Christians remain less likely than Moslems to be able to achieve senior positions in institutions such as the civil services, military, security services and universities.[39]
Women in Egypt – Status/and violence against women
[38] see DFAT Country Report – Egypt – dated 17 February 2019, at pp. 20-21
[39] Ibid, see Country Report -17 February 2019, at p.21
The following is sourced from the 2014 DFAT Thematic Report – Egyptian Copts (CIS27158):[40]
[40] Ibid, see Country Report – 17 February 2019, see at p.29-31
Article 11 of the Egyptian Constitution commits the state to achieving equality between women and men, and to ensuring appropriate representation of women in national bodies. There are considerable legal protections for women in many areas, including on personal safety, participation in the workforce, and mandatory schooling for girls. The government’s National Strategy for the Empowerment of Egyptian Women (2017-2030) sets a number of concrete targets for political, economic, and social empowerment for 2030, including increasing the percentage of women in public posts from 5 percent to 17 percent; reducing the unemployment rate for women from 24 percent to 16 percent; and halving the maternal mortality rate (currently 33 women die from pregnancy related causes for every 100,000 live births, compared to 8.5 in Australia). The strategy also aims to eliminate sexual harassment and domestic violence entirely, and to improve Egypt’s ranking on the UN Gender Inequality Index to 88 of 159 selected countries from its 2017 position of 115.
Women participate in all areas of Egyptian society, including government, business, and civil society. However, societal, cultural, legislative, and religious barriers continue to place considerable limits on that participation. The implementation of constitutional protections can be unpredictable, and frequently dependent on the individual discretion of police, prosecutors, or judges. Human rights organisations have told DFAT that some judges, particularly in rural areas, allow their religious or cultural view of women to influence their findings. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the judiciary is almost entirely male – only 0.5 percent of judges are women. The accountability of police is also an issue, both in terms of their capacity to enforce laws preventing violence and harassment of women and as
perpetrators of such acts. DFAT understands that police have targeted some women living
alone (which is a social taboo in Egypt) for arrest or extortion under Law 10/1961 which prohibits prostitution.Religiously based personal status laws tend to disadvantage both Christian and Moslem women. For example, while Muslim men can unilaterally divorce their wives without providing any justification, Muslim women must either forfeit their financial rights by accepting a ‘no-fault’ divorce or fight a long and costly court battle to prove their husband harmed them. Christian women married to Christian men are only able to access divorce if their husband converts to another religion or is unfaithful, which results in many women being unable to leave abusive relationships. Women are entitled to inherit only half as much as their male relatives. Laws related to adultery are far more severe for women than men. Women have fewer custodial rights than men. If a divorced woman with children decides to remarry, she loses custody of her children to the children’s father or his closest female kin, leading most divorced women to elect not to remarry. Abortion is criminalised in all cases. Women may not remove a child from Egypt without the specific permission of the father There have been considerable improvements on women’s representation in parliament in recent years, achieved through a quota system: Law 46/2014 stipulated the presence of 56 women on party lists, as well as 14 women appointed directly by the President.
Women make up 14.6 per cent of the current Parliament (compared to 2 per cent in 2012), there are eight women Ministers, a female National Security Advisor, and a woman Governor. The government has made progress in improving financial inclusion for women: formal account ownership among women more than tripled between 2011 and 2017, and the Central Bank is now collecting sex-disaggregated data. The government’s economic reform agenda, however, has had a disproportionate impact on women, who since 2014 have dropped out of the employment market in increasing numbers. The IMF-backed efforts to cut the public sector wage bill has had a particular impact, given the public sector provided the majority of formal employment for women. In-country sources have reported a considerable rise in women being forced into prostitution for economic reasons.
Rape, sexual harassment, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence are all strongly prevalent in Egypt. A 2017 survey by the Thomson Reuters Foundation found Cairo the world’s most dangerous megacity for women.
Article 267 of the Criminal Code makes rape a crime punishable by death. The legal definitions for rape and sexual assault are weak, however, and rape within marriage is not a crime. Women’s rights activists estimate that tens of thousands of incidents of rape occur annually, very few of which result in conviction. Human rights observers report that authorities generally treat allegations of rape and sexual assault as a ‘social nuisance’ rather than a crime to be prosecuted, and rarely make serious attempts to prosecute those responsible for sex crimes.
Sexual harassment is a frequent occurrence for women across the socio-economic spectrum. A 2013 UN Women study found 99.3 per cent of Egyptian women had experienced sexual harassment, while 91.5 per cent reported experiencing unwanted physical contact. The study found that most sexually assaulted women would not report the crime to the police or tell their families. Those who do make reports sometimes face retaliation from perpetrators or even their own families, who may blame them for provoking the assault or for bringing shame on the family. Sexual harassment was found to be particularly prevalent during mass street celebrations such as religious feasts, or political demonstrations. State officials and members of parliament have sometimes blamed victims of sexual violence because of their “revealing clothing”.
Decree 50/2014 criminalised sexual harassment for the first time, providing for prison sentences of up to five years, and parliament imposed higher penalties for sexual harassment in December 2017, including fines of up to 10,000 Egyptian pounds (about $750 AUD). There have been some instances in which authorities have successfully prosecuted perpetrators of sexual harassment: nine men received lengthy prison sentences in July 2014 for participating in mob sexual assaults, and a man received a five-year sentence in April 2015 for sexually harassing a woman on public transport in Cairo. However, such prosecutions and sentences remain rare. Authorities have instead taken action against individuals and groups who have spoken out on the issue. For example, in May 2018 authorities arrested an activist who had posted a video on Facebook which spoke about the prevalence of sexual harassment and criticised the government’s failure to protect women. In September, a court sentenced the activist to two years’ imprisonment for publishing false news, and fined her EGP10,000 (AUD795) for making public insults. The activist continues to face charges in a separate case of belonging to a terrorist organisation. Human rights observers report that several other women’s’ rights groups and activists also face criminal charges in relation to their activism, with a number of activists subject to travel bans.
Domestic violence is prevalent and commonly accepted across religious communities and socio- economic levels: a 2017 UN Women survey of gender attitudes found that 90 per cent of Egyptian men and 71 per cent of women agreed with the statement that wives should tolerate violence to keep the family together. In-country sources report that domestic violence rates have risen in line with widespread frustration over economic austerity measures (see Economic Overview). Socio-economic factors can make it difficult for a woman to escape a violent relationship: attempting to do so in conservative or rural areas will usually result in communal and familial ostracism.
Very limited services are available for women seeking to escape domestic violence: only eight government-run shelters operate nationwide (in Cairo, Giza, Qalyubia, Alexandria, Beni Sueif, Fayoum and Minya). These shelters provide social, family, and psychological counselling, along with referrals to other service providers. According to human rights observers, the shelters focus primarily on reconciling women with their abusive husbands and tend to shelter women on a limited basis. The shelters are poorly resourced and advertised, and they apply rules and procedures that greatly limit their accessibility and utility to survivors of domestic violence. For example, unmarried women (including those perceived not to be virgins), those seeking divorce, and those with children are all precluded from accessing them. In-country sources report that attempts by civil society organisations to set up private shelters have been prevented by court orders or other legal proceedings against their activities.
There are no reliable statistics available regarding the incidence of killings and assaults motivated by ‘honour’ – these are not specifically addressed in the Criminal Code and are considered as any other crime. Several articles of the Criminal Code in effect condone the committing of such crimes, including Article 17, which provides for reduced sentences in light of mitigating circumstances; Article 60, which does the same for offences committed in good faith of a sharia right; and Article 237, which provides for reduced sentences when a husband surprises his wife in the act of adultery and kills her. Human rights observers report that the practice of honour killings is more common in rural areas, with some incidences officially categorised as suicides or accidents.
Underage girls, particularly those from rural areas, are vulnerable to early or forced marriage. The government’s official statistics agency reported in 2017 that 118,904 girls in Egypt were under 18 when they married, and 18,127 were under the age of 16. The Ministry of Health has reported that 500,000 are born every year to underage mothers. Some early marriages are temporary arrangements designed to mask child prostitution, known colloquially as ‘tourism’ or ‘summer’ marriages. These ‘marriages’ involve wealthy foreign men (generally tourists from the Gulf States) purchasing young girls for the purpose of sexual exploitation, with the transaction often facilitated by the girl’s family.
The Ministry of Justice introduced measures in December 2015 to discourage such arrangements but refrained from eliminating the practice altogether. DFAT assesses that the majority of Egyptian women, regardless or religion or socio-economic status, face societal discrimination in that long-standing traditional values and gender roles continue to restrict their participation in the community and the workforce. DFAT assesses that the majority of Egyptian women face a high risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Activists who criticise government failures in relation to gender violence are likely to face arrest and prosecution in relation to their activism.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Is the applicant a ‘refugee’ as she claims?
The applicant (and her sister) claims to fear returning to Egypt because of the persecution and discrimination she would face as Coptic Orthodox Christian and because of her gender as a female. The applicant fears continuing reprisals from her Muslim neighbours in Egypt (where she lived) because of her open opposition (with hers sister) against the operation of a local mosque opposite her residential apartment and the expansion of a prayers hall. The Tribunal noted that the applicant (and her sister) has also claimed to be a Coptic Orthodox Christian in her Protection visa application.[41] The Tribunal accepts that the applicant (and her sister) is a Coptic Orthodox Christian. The Tribunal does not doubt the applicant’s (and her sister’s) Christian background and beliefs.
[41] see, Department of Home Affairs File [number] and [number]
Country information referred to earlier in this decision confirms (that despite recent efforts to ameliorate communal violence and religious antagonisms by the Sisi government) there is discrimination at all levels of Egyptian society against ‘Christians’. The Tribunal accepts this is religiously motivated and is aimed at all religious (non-Muslim) minorities. The applicant’s (and her sister’s experiences) in relation in seeking effective protection under the rule of law (in her area) within the Egyptian state apparatus because she and other members of her family are Coptic Orthodox Christians is not unique.
Enforcement of a generally applicable law does not ordinarily constitute persecution for the purposes of the Convention,[42] for the reason that enforcement of such a law does not ordinarily constitute discrimination.[43] As Brennan CJ stated in Applicant A:
the feared persecution must be discriminatory…[It] must be “for reasons of” one of [the prescribed] categories. This qualification …excludes persecution which is not more than punishment of a non-discriminatory kind for contravention of a criminal law of general application. Such laws are not discriminatory and punishment that is non-discriminatory cannot stamp the contravener with the mark of “refugee”.[44]
[42] Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225 per McHugh J at 258 referring to Yang v Carroll (1994) 852 F Supp 460 at 467.
[43] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, at [20].
[44] Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225, at 233.
The principle that, ordinarily, non-discriminatory application of generally applicable laws does not constitute persecution applies whether or not a particular law is oppressive or repugnant to the values of our society.[45] In Applicant A Dawson J agreed with the observations of the Full Federal Court in that case that:
Since a person must establish well-founded fear of persecution for certain specified reasons in order to be a refugee within the meaning of the Convention, it follows that not all persons at risk of persecution are refugees. And that must be so even if the persecution is harsh and totally repugnant to the fundamental values of our society and the international community. For example, a country might have laws of general application which punish severely, perhaps even with the death penalty, conduct which would not be criminal at all in Australia. The enforcement of such laws would doubtless be persecution, but without more it would not be persecution for one of the reasons stated in the Convention.[46]
[45] See eg, Zheng Jia Cai v MIMA (unreported, Federal Court of Australia, French J, 13 June 1997) at 16; Lama v MIMA (1999) 57 ALD 613 at [30], upheld on appeal in Lama v MIMA [1999] FCA 1620 (Branson, Sackville and Kiefel JJ, 19 November 1999); and Alamdar v MIMA [2001] FCA 1244 (Emmett J, 30 July 2001). See further discussion below under the heading ‘Value-laden laws’.
[46]Applicant A v MIEA (1997) 190 CLR 225, at 245 citing with apparent approval MIEA v Respondent A and B (1995) 57 FCR 309 at 319. Note that the description of harsh punishment under a generally applicable law as ‘persecution’ is inconsistent with High Court authority which holds that persecution necessarily involves discrimination, as do the requirements of persecution in s.91R(1)(a) and (c).
Whether a law is properly characterised as a law of general application turns on identifying those members of the population to whom it applies.[47] In some circumstances, it may be necessary to look behind a law that is generally expressed, to establish whether the law itself is in truth discriminatory in its intent or whether it has a discriminatory impact on members of a group recognised by the Convention.
[47] See Weheliye v MIMA [2001] FCA 1222 (Goldberg J, 31 August 2001), at [50].
The High Court in Chen Shi Hai v MIMA confirmed that laws or policies which target, or only apply to, or impact adversely upon, a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application:
Laws or policies which target or apply only to a particular section of the population are not properly described as laws or policies of general application. Certainly, laws which target or impact adversely upon a particular class or group - for example, “black children”, as distinct from children generally - cannot properly be described in that way. … To say that, ordinarily, a law of general application is not discriminatory is not to deny that general laws, which are apparently non-discriminatory, may impact differently on different people and, thus, operate discriminatorily. Nor is it to overlook the possibility that selective enforcement of a law of general application may result in discrimination. As a general rule, however, a law of general application is not discriminatory.[48]
[48] Chen Shi Hai v MIMA (2000) 201 CLR 293, per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ at [19] to [21]. See also per Kirby J at [72] and Wang v MIMA (2000) 105 FCR 548 at [50]-[68] where Merkel J (Wilcox and Gray JJ agreeing) discussed what the High Court and courts in other jurisdictions have said about ‘laws of general application’. Referring to Chen, his Honour at [65] reiterated that ‘[a] law that targets or applies to persons by reason of their political opinions, religion, race or membership of a pre-existing group, is not properly described as a law of general application’. Thus, laws regulating the practice of religion, requiring that they be practised or observed in a particular way or targeting or applying only to persons practicing religion, are not laws of ‘general application’. Nevertheless, consideration may still need to be given as to whether such a law has a legitimate object (see below). Although a law that is general in its terms may impact adversely upon a particular group, this of itself, will not necessarily mean it is not a law of general application, see comments in SZDNE v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 717 (Raphael FM, 14 October 2004) at [10]. The Court described the Nepalese law against bovicide as ‘truly a law of general application. It may have a different effect on different people because persons such as the applicant have no religious views concerning cows, but the law is the same for him as it is for the highest caste of Brahmin who may reside in Nepal’.
In this case, the Tribunal has considered the country information as set out above and notes that discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited under Egyptian law, however there are reports (referred to earlier) that confirm that Coptic Christians continue to face official and societal discrimination and that this has been prevalent for decades. The US Department of State’s International Religious Freedom report notes that although Egypt has legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion; in practice these laws are rarely enforced.[49] In October 2011, while the Supreme Council of the Armed forces issued a decree to amend provisions of the Egyptian Penal Code to explicitly prohibit discrimination on religious grounds[50] and added Article 161(ii), defining discrimination as ‘any action, or lack of action, that leads to discrimination between people or against a sect due to gender, origin, language, religion, or belief’,[51] and provides for fines or imprisonment, for perpetrators of acts of discrimination this amendment however does not include any enforcement mechanisms.[52] Further there have been no indications according the United States Department of State that during 2013 that the government enforced the 2011 amendments to the penal code that make discrimination a crime.[53] In 2014 DFAT has also reported that while ‘anti‑discrimination laws exist, these can be difficult to implement’.[54]
[49] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[50] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[51] US Department of State 2012, International Religious Freedom Report 2011 - Egypt, 30 July, Section 2 Accessed 17 December 2013
[52] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.4 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[53] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, p.18 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[54] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
Although the 2014 Constitution officially recognises Coptic Christianity and includes an anti‑discrimination clause and Article 53 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion and belief,[55] country information indicates that it still remains to be seen whether there will be substantive legal and policy towards addressing the deep-seated discrimination Copts have faced in public office, education, political participation and other areas of civic life’.[56] The European Parliament also notes that taking into account that lack of legal implementation and a weak police response which are among the main causes of violence and discrimination of religious minorities in Egypt; it is unlikely that any improvement in the legal framework will bring changes to the situation on the ground.[57]
[55] Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2014 – Unofficial Translation Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92048
[56] Minority Rights Group International 2013, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Egypt: Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January 2014 CX317623
[57] European Parliamentary Research Service 2014, Egypt’s New Constitution and Religious Minorities’ Rights - Prospect of Improvement?, 23 January, p.6 Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
The Tribunal notes that DFAT has assessed community prejudice against Copts to be pervasive and the likelihood of encountering societal discrimination is ‘heavily dependent on geographic and socio‑economic factors’, with discrimination ‘low‑level and infrequent’ in middle class urban areas but ‘higher’ in poor urban and rural areas.[58] According to DFAT, ‘most Copts in both urban and rural areas do not experience harassment and discrimination in their daily lives and live alongside Muslims across all social classes, genders and backgrounds’.[59] Nevertheless, DFAT states that since the January 2011 revolution, there have been reports of ‘harassment and intimidation of Christians and Muslims by more conservative Muslims’ and notes that it is aware of ‘anecdotal reports of Christian men and women being encouraged – or cajoled – to convert to Islam.’[60] In its June 2014 policy document on Copts, the UK Border Agency similarly assessed that Christians face ‘personal and collective societal discrimination.’[61] According to Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa division, ‘Coptic Christians across Egypt face discrimination in law and practice.’[62]
[58] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[59] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[60] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.11 CIS27158
[61] UK Border Agency 2014, Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 30 June, p.7 OG180885B8
[62] Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094
As noted, earlier reports published by the United States Department of State,[63] the Carnegie Endowment,[64] Open Democracy[65] and Ahram Online[66] between 2015 and 2013 all refer to Copts facing official discrimination in Egypt within the public sector including government, universities, security forced and the judiciary. Although DFAT has provided a different assessment stating that ‘Copts experience low levels’ of official discrimination[67] and while DFAT reports that ‘there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public sector employment’ it also notes that ‘the percentage of Copts in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population.’[68]
[63] US Department of State 2014, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013: Egypt, 28 July, pp. 13-15 Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS29206
[64] Brownlee, J 2013, Violence Against Copts in Egypt, 14 November, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Accessed 10 December 2013 CX316406
[65] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714
[66] Fayek, M 2014, Copts in El Sisi’s Egypt, 29 May, Open Democracy Accessed 10 February 2015 CX1B9ECAB9714 Ahram Online is a state-owned English-language news website published by Al-Ahram Establishment, Egypt’s largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic-language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About AhramOnline Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring 2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Center – Accessed 23 May 2013; Ezzat, D 2013, ‘Egyptian Christians struggle to overcome minority status’, Ahram Online, 27 September Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469
[67] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.7 CIS27158
[68] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January, p.12 CIS27158
The country information indicates that while Egypt has anti-discrimination laws, the information confirms that these are often not enforced when it relates to Coptic Orthodox Christians. Therefore, the Tribunal accepts that as Coptic Orthodox Christians, the applicant and her sister have faced discrimination in a manner in which they have described in their evidence before the Tribunal and have been singled out and abused for attempting to limit the excesses of a local mosque and expanded prayer hall opposite their apartment home in Egypt. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s and her sister’s claim that they had been singled out in their local area by Muslims who attended and were attached to the local mosque and particular, their Muslim neighbour, [Neighbour B] (who was also a close neighbour). The Tribunal noted
The two sisters were also singled out by other Muslims which could not be readily identified because it became widely known in the neighbourhood their opposition to the mosque’s activities. The Tribunal accepts that reprisals were taken out on the family’s motor vehicle which (according to the applicant) was parked in the street. Indeed, the wilful damage caused to the applicant’s motor vehicle in [2012] and the apprehensions she, her sister and other family members felt in being in so close proximity to a mosque and known and popular Muslim prayer hall, is real testimony that they (in particular, the applicant and her sister) were in danger of being constantly singled out for the known opposition they had displayed to the excesses of the local mosque and local Muslims (in particular, their militant neighbour, Muhamad). All incidents, as the Tribunal was told in evidence, were reported to the local police. However, the manner in which the police investigations were conducted (without any real results) as suggested by the applicant suggests that she (and her sister) had very little chance of being provided even minimal state protection because of her situation and this was largely due to an innate discrimination within the law enforcement sectors of the Egyptian state.
The Tribunal also considered that having lost her security in her home suburb and residence, the applicant (and her sister, after their mother had died) had no other avenue open to the applicant and her sister but to consider leaving Egypt and seek safer refuge in the more stable countries in the West – such as Australia, where the applicant’s other sister was living. The situation in Egypt at the time of the applicant’s departure (2015) was in a very excited and uncertain state. As one would remember an elected government had been overthrown by the military and as a result instability both political and civil was rife in most city centres of Egypt – Cairo was not exempt. The Tribunal understands that this time would have been full of uncertainties and fears for the applicant and her sister – a known Coptic Christian and an individual who was known for her complaints against a local mosque and prayer centre. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s descriptions of the time following the military coup in Egypt and acknowledges that she and her sister would have felt significant anxieties about her present well-being (and that of her sister’s) and future security. Considering the country information, available (and incorporated into this decision) despite the present Sisi government’s determination to contain in any way possible religious antagonisms – especially between Muslims and Copts it is possible, as the applicant claimed that local Muslims and their clerics would have considered and treated local Coptic Christians as ‘Qafara’ (‘Infidels’) because of their complaints to the local authorities about the noise and build-up of traffic and congestion in close proximity to the applicant’s home apartment.
The Tribunal is cognizant of the fact that as a known (to local Muslims) complainer, the applicant faced a very real risk of persecution for what she (and her sister) had done – complain and resist the activities of the local mosque. The applicant and her sister it was submitted could not mitigate the threat that faced them as other Copts in the neighbourhood had done by selling their homes or surrendering their leases and migrating to other Cairo suburbs because their apartment was owned by them (the family’s) and did not have the economic means to find a similar-size home in a another less-Muslim occupied suburb in Cairo. In other words, the Tribunal considers the fears and concerns of the applicant (and her sister) in the circumstances they presented to the Tribunal in their evidence were substantial and credible.
The Tribunal also notes that since April 2017, despite the declaration of a state of emergency by the Egyptian government sectarian violence has been on the increase and Coptic Orthodox Christians have suffered horrendous casualties and deaths as a result of who they are and what they believe in regardless of the assurance and willingness of the Egyptian state to protect them against attacks by radical or extremist non-Christian elements and despite legal guarantees expressed in the clear language by Egyptian law and the Egyptian Constitution. The Tribunal has noted recent developments which note an increase in sectarian violence and the targeting of Coptic Christians and other religious minorities, and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant (and her sister) had been targeted in the past by sympathisers belonging to the local mosque because she (and her sister) was a Coptic Orthodox Christian and due to her past known opposition to the excesses of the local mosque and Muslim prayer – a past that was well-known.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant (and her sister) had attempted to seek the protection from the local Egyptian police because of threats from their neighbour and damage caused to the applicant’s motor-vehicle but had very little protection provided to her.
Further, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant and her sister had to leave Egypt in order to escape any reprisals from her Muslim neighbour who had links to the local mosque and that sanctuary and safety at that time could only be located in a foreign country and not within Egypt itself.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant (and her sister’s evidence) that the applicant (and her sister) would face difficulties if she was to return to Egypt and attempted to carry on with her life. The Tribunal notes that the Egyptian National Police are responsible for law enforcement nationwide and various sources including DFAT[69] indicate that police investigative skills remain poor, and they suffer from shortfalls in training and equipment. Moreover, investigations of any crimes committed against women of whatever age are rarely given the attention one would expect. The Tribunal also acknowledges that the security situation has changed to an extent since 2013 and police in urban areas are more likely to provide more effective protection, DFAT nevertheless notes that the Egyptian police are a reflection of the Egyptian population and the increasingly conservative nature of Egyptian society is mirrored in the police force, particularly in rural areas and crimes against women (and especially Coptic Orthodox Christian women) are seldom investigated or prosecuted with vigour. In areas outside major cities, the police live in the community they police and are subject to local pressures to make choices that are congruent with dominant social mores. The United States Department of State noted in 2013 that there were credible reports that security forces failed to prevent or respond to societal violence against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities. The UK Home Office’s Country Information Guidance, Egypt: Christians noted in “MS (paragraph 151(1)) the UK Upper Tribunal found that there was inadequate state protection for Coptic Christians.[70] Inadequate protection which had been further made evident with repeated attacks on Coptic Christians this year in Egypt.
[69] United States Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Egypt, 27 February 2014; DFAT Country Report, Egypt, 28 January 2014.
[70] UK Home Office Country Information and Guidance Egypt: Christians, 14 July 2014.
In light of all the evidence, including the available country information, the Tribunal is of the view that while official and societal discrimination of themselves may not constitute serious harm, the cumulative effect of these in conjunction to the applicant’s religion and her past activities as a known complainant concerning the activities of a local mosque which was widely known and resented by some in her neighbourhood (in particular her neighbour – [Neighbour B]) is sufficiently serious as to constitute persecution.
The Tribunal is satisfied that cumulatively there is a real chance that the applicant is at risk of serious harm if she and her sister return to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future and there is a real chance that persecution will occur. This is based on the applicant’s past experiences (prior to leaving Egypt for Australia) of discrimination and harm as Coptic Christians and as a Christian minority and she (and her sister) being singled out for particular attention by Muslims associated with a local mosque because of her (and her sister’s) opposition to the local mosque’s excesses when operating that supports a conclusion that her fears of persecution is well-founded. The country information and recent disturbing developments in Egypt indicate that while a state of emergency had up to now contained sectarian violence, these disturbing recent events, indicate to the Tribunal that sectarian violence still occurs and there has been no appreciable change in the treatment of Coptic Christians, other Christian minorities, and other elements of Egyptian society.
In this instance, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s (and her sister’s) cumulative circumstances are grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution as provided for by s.5J of the Act.
Furthermore, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is a real chance of persecution on the grounds of the applicant’s religion which includes her past experiences of discrimination and persecution and her membership of a particular social group namely as Egyptian Coptic Christians and her gender and which is further compounded by her long and open opposition to a local mosque and Muslim prayer hall (which was widely known) who (and her sister) has no safe place of residence because of her actions and has been targeted for harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and therefore the applicants satisfy the criterion for a refugee set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
For the reasons given above the Tribunal is satisfied that each of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicants satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Peter Vlahos
MemberATTACHMENT - 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.
…
July, 2013-07-23 Accessed 17 December 2013 CX316551; Amnesty International 2013, Egypt’s Coptic
Christians must be protected from sectarian violence, 27 March must-be-protected-sectarian-violence, Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094.
Accessed 29 July 2014
CIS29206; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2014, DFAT Thematic Report Egyptian Copts, 28 January,at p.7 CIS27158.
Accessed 29 July 2014CIS29206.
Accessed 29 July 2014CIS29206
CIS27158; ‘What is new in Egypt’s draft constitution’ 2013, BBC News, 3 DecemberAccessed 5 December 2013 CX316553
Copts, November, UNHCR Refworld Accessed 31 January2014 CX317623.
Prospect of Improvement? 23 January, at p. 6
Accessed 11 February 2015 CIS2F827D92044
Accessed
10 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1298; Fayek, M Copts in El-Sisi’s Egypt, Open Democracy,
Accessed 10 February 2015
CX1BECAB9714; Kingsley, P 2015, ‘Egyptian President Attends Coptic Christmas Eve Mass in Cairo’, The
Guardian, 8 January Accessed 6 February 2015 CXBD6A0DE1385
OGI180885B8
27 March 2013-03-27 Accessed 20 May 2013 CX307094
Accessed 29 July 2014CIS29206.
International Peace,Accessed 29 July 2014 CIS2906
largest news organisation. Al Ahram Establishment publishes Arabic language daily Al-Ahram, which is the oldest
and one of the most widely read daily newspapers in Egypt and the Arab world. See Ahram Online n.d., About
Ahram Online Accessed 2 December 2013; BBC Monitoring
2013, Media Environment Guide: Egypt January 2013, 28 January, Open Source Centre – Accessed 23 May
2013; Ezzat, D. minority-.aspx Accessed 3 October 2013 CX316469.
0
9
0