1836199 (Refugee)
[2022] AATA 1764
•22 April 2022
1836199 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 1764 (22 April 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1836199
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Egypt
MEMBER:Peter Vlahos
DATE:22 April 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
This Statement was made on 22nd April 2022 at 7.30AM.
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection visa – Egypt – religion – Coptic Christian – medical conditions – potential suicidal ideations – significant anxiety about returning to the Egyptian health system – discrimination he encountered was very minimal – applicant was not the subject of intelligence interest – fear with respect to his religion is not well-founded –delay in lodging the visa application – compassionate circumstances regarding [the applicant’s] health and psychological state – Ministerial intervention – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 417, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 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 25 October 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the application for Protection visa did not satisfy subsection 36(2) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 March 2022 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic 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 [name deleted] (the ‘applicant’).For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country of origins and assessment of the applicant
Based on a copy of the applicant’s passport, which was provided to the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of Arab Republic of Egypt and has had his claims assessed against that country in relation to sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act.[1]
Availability of third country protection
[1] see Department of Home Affairs File no. [deleted] and AAT File, for the applicant’s Passport (copy) and other identification evidence.
From the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant does not have a right to enter or reside in a country other than his country of origin, Egypt. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that s. 36(3) of the Act does not apply to the applicant’s situation.
The Department’s file
The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant. The Tribunal also has had regard and has considered the information referred to in the delegate’s decision record. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record to the Tribunal with his application for review which was submitted to the Tribunal on 10 December 2018.
Background – the migration history of the applicant
On 23 February 2009 the applicant was granted a Student visa (subclass TU-572). On [date] April 2009 the applicant arrived in Australia as the holder of a Student visa (TU-572). On 12 August 2010 the applicant lodges a further Student visa (TU-572) and on 16 November 2010 the Student visa (TU-572) was granted. On 12 April 2012 the applicant lodged a Temporary Employer Sponsored visa (UC-457). On 17 January 2014 the Temporary Employer Sponsored visa (UC-457) was refused by the Department. On 12 December 2014 the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (differently constituted) reviewed the visa refusal and affirmed the decision to refuse the (UC-457) visa. On 20 January 2015 the applicant’s bridging visa ceased and he became an unlawful non-citizen. On 10 December 2015 the applicant lodges a Ministerial intervention and was granted a Bridging visa E. On 9 October 2016 the Ministerial intervention outcome was – ‘not considered’. On 25 October 2016 an application for Permanent Protection Visa (XA-866) was lodged. On 27 October 2016 the applicant was issued with a Bridging E visa until his claims were considered by the Tribunal.
EVIDENE AT THE HEARING
The applicant’s claims for Protection
The applicant claims for Protection and supporting evidence are contained in the Department’s file[2] and his claims for protection are summarised as follows:
[2] see, Department File no. [deleted]
§The applicant originates from [a] district of Greater Cairo, where his mother and siblings still live. His father died in April 2015. His family lives in fear on account of their Christian religion.
§In Egypt, the applicant has suffered societal discrimination. Christian students received their religious instruction on the stairway whereas Muslim students had a classroom. After Christmas mas when he was [age] years-of-age, some Muslims attacked the worshippers as they left the local church. The applicant was hit by a rock on the head and still bears the scar. After his graduation (in Egypt), he had difficulty obtaining work on account of his religion.
§The applicant’s sister quit her job because it wasn’t safe to travel in public not wearing a hijab.
§The applicant’s brother was a [occupation], and he was discriminated against because he was a Christian. When the applicant was [age] years-of-age, a person came to the workshop and spat on their religious picture and dropped their photos on the floor. A fight resulted and the applicant was injured. A group of Muslims helped the aggressor. They, [the applicant and his father] did not report to the authorities as they wouldn’t intervene in a matter of this nature.
§In 2000 his sister’s Muslim friend would talk on the phone to her parents at the applicant’s house, where they let her have a private room. The girl asked his family questions about church and indicated that she wanted to attend. Their priest refused her permission to attend Mass, but she was permitted to visit the church and she went once with his sister
§After this people started asking the neighbours about the applicant’s family. They were from Egyptian intelligence. They detained his father for a few days and the applicant later discovered that the girl had been the subject of a politico-religious investigation for giving information to people in [Country 1]
§Egyptian intelligence interrogated his father three times, focusing on religion. They asked if he wanted to convert to Islam and he refused. They asked him about the phone calls to [Country 1]. His father explained that the calls were from his daughter’s friend; he was released but kept under monitoring for months. They never saw his sister’s friend again
§Muslim extremists complained about their prayers and would swear at them and call them infidels. He was personally insulted by Muslims and feared for his safety. They threatened to stop them from praying. In 2005 his church, [was] burnt down and many people were injured, although he was not present
§He came to Australia in 2009 to study and improve his English. He has relatives here. He completed his studies in 2012, around the time that President Mubarak stepped down and handed power to the army. Since then, the situation for Copts in Egypt has deteriorated. The state cannot defend itself from Muslim extremists, let alone protect Christians
The applicant attended a department interview to discuss his claims for protection on 31 October 2018 with the assistance of an Arabic-speaking interpreter. At the interview the applicant reiterated the claims summarised above and added this additional information:
§The applicant wanted to stay in Australia under employer sponsorship because he has family here. His uncle owned [number of businesses] and he wanted to be eligible to work there as a skilled visa holder, so he studied a [qualification]
§Some of the applicant’s family members have returned to Egypt and didn’t experience any trouble
§Egyptian intelligence thought that his father was trying to convert his daughter’s Muslim friend to Christianity. They offered him to convert to Islam to prove that he is not a missionary. The officers had used the family’s landline for their own purposes; they disconnected the wire so that their activities couldn’t be tracked. They tap calls to [two countries]
§The applicant fears that returning from a Christian country would increase his risk of being harmed in Egypt
§The applicant’s sister has suffered further discrimination. Her engagement was called off because the family’s history with intelligence was discovered
§The applicant’s church in Egypt, [has] been burnt around five times. Authorities investigated but there have been no consequences and they do not want to enflame tensions further by charging the offenders
§Although the general population in Egypt is subject to violence from fundamentalists, Christians are disproportionately affected. There have been frequent attacks against Christians under Sisi’s government. Christians support him and extremist Muslims resent Sisi’s ascendency at the expense of the Muslim Brotherhood
§The applicant has medical issues, which is another reason he doesn’t want to return to Egypt. He takes depression medication in Australia that would not be available in Egypt. He also has [a medical condition], which affects his life expectancy
The applicant told the Tribunal that throughout his life (while in Egypt) he faced discrimination because he was (and is) a Christian.
The applicant told the Tribunal that ‘most of his rights have been lost’ because ‘he was living in a (predominantly) Muslim country.’
The applicant said that when he was a young student attending to his studies at his local school [which] was not a ‘religious school’ the applicant was not provided with proper tuition in religious studies as was provided to other students who were Muslims by religion. The applicant told the Tribunal, that he and other Christian students received their religious instruction ‘on the steps’ and ‘not in a proper classroom.’
The applicant said that his [education] ‘continued for three years’ and then he attended ‘another’ ‘high school’ and despite the discrimination which continued, the applicant completed his high school studies.
Once the applicant had completed his high school studies the applicant told the Tribunal that he attended the local university (state-run) and there, studied for his [a degree]. The applicant then transferred to another local university where he continued his studies for his [degree] which he completed in 2007.
After the applicant had completed his university studies, he said that he gained employment [in] an Egyptian [company].
The applicant told the Tribunal that while he was working as a [Occupation 1], he was trying to make arrangements for his visa in order to leave Egypt.
The applicant said that his ‘work life’ was not that good for him as it should have been. The applicant said that his name caused him many problems. The applicant said that his ‘name was a Christian name’ and this caused him to ‘be rejected when [working].’ The applicant said that he was not taken seriously by people he approached for business because from his name, they identified him as a ‘Christian’ and in time rejected him.
The applicant also said that working as [Occupation 1] for his company, he was ‘abused’ by clients ‘because he was a Christian.’
The applicant said that he tried to find a better employment, but his efforts proved fruitless because ‘good positions’ for work were always given to Muslims ‘not to Christians.’
Incident with the Egyptian intelligence
The applicant said a friend of his sister (a date was not provided) attended a ‘Christian group’. According to the applicant’s description of this group (which was Christian) his sister had an association with it. This friend of the applicant’s sister (according to the applicant) displayed an ‘interest in Christianity.’ This ‘friend’ also (according to the applicant) came to his family home to study and to learn about Christianity. During one of these reading sessions held at the applicant’s family home, ‘someone’ the applicant told the Tribunal, called his home’s telephone and ‘asked to talk to this (Muslim) girl.
The applicant was asked if he could remember names, but the applicant said that ‘he could not remember names.’
The applicant said that ‘later’ he and his family were told by ‘Egyptian intelligence’ that the ‘calls to the girl’ originated from ‘[Country 1]’.
The applicant said that this Muslim girl attended his local Christian church and would at times ‘wear the hijab’ and on other occasions ‘would not wear it…’ This characteristic of the Muslim girl and friend of his sister, the applicant said was told to him by ‘the neighbours’.
The applicant described his parents as being ‘very active in the Church.’
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal to explain – why was Egyptian Intelligence interested in this girl and in his family’s relationship with this girl? The applicant said, that ‘Egyptian intelligence was suspect about this family…’
The applicant was asked by the Tribunal, what was his parents’ activities with their local Church? The applicant explained his parents’ ‘activity’ with the local Church as follows: “parents go to church most days … and went on to say, that his [late]father ‘took care of the local priest’s car…” and because of this close association with the church (locally) the applicant said that his family had “…experienced violence…”
The Tribunal asked the applicant, was his late father interrogated by Egyptian intelligence about his sister’s friend and about the calls to persons in [Country 1]? The applicant said that they asked his father – ‘why was she making calls to [Country 1]?’ They also asked him to explain to them – why on occasions she (the girl) would remove her hijab.
Thereafter, the applicant said that the Intelligence persons would come ‘now and then’ to check on things.
The applicant said after this incident, he and his family considered it better if the applicant left Egypt because this incident (with intelligence) would always cause him issues for his prospects for future employment.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he has a medical condition which could cause him issues if he was to return to Egypt. The applicant identified his medical condition to the Tribunal as having undergone (successfully) [surgery]. The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence of his medical condition and requested that further detail be submitted to the Tribunal for its consideration.
Applicant’s Medical condition
On 11 April 2022 the applicant’s legal counsel provided the following written submission and evidence-in-support concerning the applicant’s medical condition.
The Tribunal was provided with the following documents:
§GP letter from [Dr A] dated 10 April 2022
§GP letter from [Dr B] dated 11 April 2022
§Letter from [an] Emergency Department dated 7 February 2016
§GP letter from [Dr B] dated 31 March 2022
§Mental Health Plan dated 31 March 2022
§Psychologist Letter [dated] 7 April 202
§[Deleted] dated 4 April 2022
§[Deleted] dated 25 April 2020
§Medical referral from [Dr A] dated 30 December 2019
§Psychiatrist letter from [a named doctor] dated 8 February 2020
§Support letter from Father [C] dated 6 April 2022
§Support letter from Father [D] dated 8 April 2022
§Support letter from [a named person]
The applicant’s Legal Counsel’s submission
The applicant’s legal counsel submits that the applicant has endured several life changing events which has caused him to suffer various medical conditions which have affected his physical and mental health.
The applicant’s health has been raptured by a major depressive disorder, severe anxiety and PTSD. The applicant’s legal counsel submits that the applicant has reached a point where he was ‘non-functional’ due to ‘these mental illnesses’ and often was ‘unable to leave his room’ and even ‘contemplated suicide.[3]
[3] see. Letter from Dr [A] dated 10 April 2022.
It was submitted that the applicant had been born with [a medical condition], which caused for him several medical issues in the past. Since he has been in Australia, the applicant become more confident, and he is receiving adequate medical attention whenever that need arises.
The legal counsel submits that in 2016 the applicant sought help for his mental health by consulting his GP and was prescribed antidepressants and medication for his anxiety.[4] Accordingly, these medications on their own were not providing sufficient assistance, so the applicant sought specialist assistance from a psychologist and psychiatrist. Since engaging with this professional assistance, the applicant has subsequently ceased taking the antidepressant medication prescribed and the applicant has been able to return to fulltime work.[5]
[4] Ibid, Dr [A] letter
[5] Ibid
The legal counsel submits that the applicant’s GP has concerns that if the applicant was returned to Egypt, this would cause a rapid decline in the applicant’s mental health, and the applicant would be at risk of returning to the major depressive state he had experienced prior to 2016. Further concerns were identified in that if the applicant’s [medical condition is] not monitored and necessary treatment provided when needed, the applicant could also be at risk of [issues].[6] The applicant’s GP, [Dr A] indicated, it was submitted in his report, that the treatment in Egypt may not be adequate, and that any impact on his [treatments] could trigger a major decline in his mental health, particularly as he would not have as good access (as he has had) to a Psychologist or Psychiatrist as is the case in Australia.[7]
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
It was submitted that Dr [B] expressed concern that the thought of returning to Egypt, could be detrimental to his mental health and prove fatal.[8] Dr [Dr B] describes the applicant’s mental health issues as ‘complex’ and ‘suicidal ideations’ which ‘were always contemplate.’[9] He goes on to express his concern that [details deleted], and that the applicant is at risk of [medical issues] and even death.[10] Dr [Dr B] states the concern that the same high level of health care is not available in Egypt, and that the applicant’s life would be endangered if he was to return.[11]
[8] Letter from Dr [B] dated 11 April 2022
[9] Ibid
[10] Ibid
[11] Ibid
Evidence was also submitted attesting to the applicant’s ongoing mental health treatment via a mental health plan as provided for by the [Scheme], which allows for six (6) sessions of psychological treatment.[12] This document indicates the applicant’s condition as seeking treatment of a chronic mixed anxiety depression. The referral letter indicates that the applicant suffers from low moods, lack of appetite and suicidal ideations.[13] A letter from the applicant’s psychologist [indicates] that the applicant’s mental health has been suffering due to the uncertain situation surrounding his visa status.[14]
[12] Referral letter to [Psychologist] dated 31 March 2022
[13] Ibid
[14] Letter from [Psychologist] dated 7 April 2022
The applicant it is submitted has a significant anxiety about returning to the Egyptian health system, recalling an incident when he was young, and his family tried to get help for his paternal grandmother but was denied treatment. The applicant claims that the ambulance arrived five hours later, but his grandmother had passed away.[15] The applicant also claims that his father also passed away after waiting six hours for an ambulance.[16] [The psychologist] notes in her letter that the applicant’s anxiety and depression is centred around not being secure due to his visa status. [The psychologist] also notes the applicant’s needing ongoing check-ups for his [medical condition] [and] it was submitted that the applicant was anxious about returning to Egypt after the experience his family has had with the Egyptian health system and services.
[15] Ibid
[16] Ibid
It was submitted that the applicant has had sudden ‘flare ups’ [whilst] in Australia, and it appears his GPs are aware and maintaining a constant monitor of his health condition.
It was submitted that all GPs have expressed concerns that this high level of care as the applicant has been provided while in Australia would not be available in Egypt, and without these in place, the applicant could take a rapid decline into a more depressive disorder once more, impacting on potential suicidal ideations, as well as severe illness [deleted] if it is not properly monitored and treated in a timely fashion in the event, he suffers a relapse.
It was also noted by the Tribunal reading the legal counsel’s submission – the country information. It reports that Egypt’s healthcare system is currently struggling with the Covid-19 pandemic because of the overcrowding and significant delays in waiting times for treatment. The information submitted also reports that hospitals in Egypt are understaffed by about 60,000 nurses and that 55% of Egypt’s registered doctors work outside the country. It was also reported that the health care budget has been increasingly ignored by the Egyptian government, with funding declining from 6.7% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2016. The information provided that there is a lot of stigma regarding patients requiring mental health treatment in Egypt. Indeed, treatment for a mental health issue involves a plethora of paperwork and long waiting times and endless dealings with state bureaucracy. It was also reported that the European ways of treating mental illness, described as ‘talking therapies’, are difficult to carry out because of social and cultural barriers.
The applicant’s legal counsel submitted that considering of the applicant’s medical history and information an appeal to the Minister via a ministerial intervention would be ‘appropriate’. According to the applicant’s legal counsel, it was clearly established that the applicant is subjected to a high level of care and medical attention whilst in Australia which is contributing in a positive way to his enjoyment and quality of life. Noting (according to the legal counsel) what the country information suggests is, if Egypt is unable to meet a level of care as suggested by the medical advice provided for the applicant, ‘there is a real risk of a significant downgrade’ in the applicant’s health which included [deleted] – should treatment not be accessible, forthcoming and competently applied.[17]
[17] see, [further] submissions to the AAT dated 11 April 2022 pp.1 to 11
COUNTRY INFORMATION – EGYPT – CHRISTIANS AND THE RULE OF LAW
Socio-political context
The current Sisi administration has shown significant support for the Coptic community. In 2013, Copts overwhelmingly supported Sisi in his overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government.[18]The Sisi government has called for Muslim leaders to promote tolerance and acceptance[19]and has provided visible security around prominent Coptic churches. Some within the Coptic community have criticised the Coptic Pope for his perceived closeness to the Sisi government, calling him ‘the regime’s Pope’.[20]
[18] ‘Are Copts at risk because of their Sisi support?’, The New Arab, 14 March 2017, CXC9040663760
[19] ‘2015 Report on International Religious Freedom: Egypt’, US Department of State, 10 August 2016, OGD95BE926698
[20] ‘Sisi and the Copts: Grim Prospects for a Troubled Relationship’, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 20 March 2017, CXC9040664553
Although significant community tensions remain in some areas of Upper Egypt (particularly Minya), there have been substantial improvements under the Sisi administration in terms of personal safety and freedom of worship for Copts. DFAT assesses that most Copts from all walks of life live peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, particularly in urban centres.[21]
Security situation
[21]‘DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2017, p.12, CISEDB50AD4203; ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 24 November 2015, p.11, CISEC96CF13957
2016 and 2017 saw an increase in violence against Egyptian Copts, following a relative lull in 2014-15. Prior to a significant December 2016 Cairo bombing, most incidents were relatively small in scale and occurred in the province of Minya, approximately 200 km south of Cairo. Minya, which has a large Coptic population, high concentration of Islamist activists, high rate of poverty, and low rate of education, has been particularly notable as a location for communal tensions with 37 attacks recorded in recent years.[22]The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) assesses that occasional violent incidents of communal violence are likely to continue to occur, especially in Upper Egypt and in Minya in particular.[23]
[22]‘Attack on Coptic Cathedral in Cairo Kills Dozens’, The New York Times, 11 December 2016, CX6A26A6E16143>
[23]‘DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2017, p.12, CISEDB50AD4203
The 11 December 2016 bombing at the St Peter and St Paul Church, next to Cairo’s main Coptic Orthodox cathedral, marked an escalation in the scale of attacks. Twenty-nine people were killed and 49 injured. Many were women and children. Unusually for Egypt, the attack, for which Islamic State claimed responsibility, was carried out by a suicide bomber. In a statement, Islamic State warned of more attacks to come.[24]
[24]‘ISIS Claims Responsibility for Egypt Church Bombing and Warns of More to Come’, The New York Times, 13 December 2016, CX6A26A6E15066
The 9 April 2017 dual bombings in Tanta and Alexandria show that Islamic State in Egypt has expanded its reach from the Sinai Peninsula and is able to launch simultaneous attacks in multiple cities.[25]At least 27 people were killed and 78 injured when an Islamic State suicide bomber attacked a Palm Sunday service at St George’s Coptic Church in Tanta. Hours later, another Islamic State suicide bomber attacked St Mark’s Coptic Church in Alexandria, killing 17 people outside the church. Police stopped the Alexandria bomber from entering the church where the head of the Coptic Church, Pope Tawadros II, was attending Mass.[26]
[25]‘Despite Attacks Egypt Maintains Conventional Military Strategy’, The Cipher Brief, 9 April 2017, CXC9040665592
[26]‘Egypt's Coptic churches hit by deadly blasts on Palm Sunday’, British Broadcasting Corporation, 10 April 2017, CISEDB50AD3837
DFAT advised that:
In response to the Palm Sunday bombings, Sisi issued a Presidential Decree on 9 April 2017 declaring a nation-wide state of emergency, the first under the 2014 Constitution. The decree was passed unanimously by Parliament on 11 April. The state of emergency is governed by Law 162 of 1958, ‘The Emergency Law’. While the exact details of the Emergency Law and how it will be applied were unclear at the publication date, it is likely that the military will be granted extended powers. DFAT assesses that detentions and arrests are likely to increase as a result of the declaration of a nation-wide state of emergency. Sisi also proposed the establishment of a Supreme Council to combat Terrorism and Extremism, which would which consider new powers for police and intelligence investigators and allow for the fast-tracking of terrorism cases through the court system.[27]
[27] ‘Country Information Report – Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2018, CISEDB50AD4203, sections 2.27 – 2.31, pp.8-9
In February 2017, Islamic State in Egypt released a video claiming responsibility for the December 2016 bombing in Cairo.[28]The video, Fight All the Infidels, contained footage of the December 2016 attack and vowed to target Christians in Egypt.[29] Also in February 2017, Islamic State in Egypt circulated a ‘hit list’ of 40 names in the town of El Arish in North Sinai. Eight Copts were killed in two weeks, causing hundreds of families to flee the area.[30] In March 2017, Islamic State in Egypt set up checkpoints in North Sinai, stopping cars and requesting identification, saying they were looking for Christians.[31]
[28]‘Egypt Security Watch Quarterly Report: October-December 2016’, Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, 10 April 2017, p.15, CISEDB50AD3856
[29]‘They called my husband an infidel and killed him’’, The Times, 3 April 2017, CXC9040665533
[30]‘Province of Sinai militants release footage of religious policing in North Sinai’, Mada Masr, 29 March 2017, CXC9040664967
[31]‘Gunmen in Egypt Force Coptic Christian Pilgrims from Buses and Kill 28’, New York Times, 26 May 2017, CXC9040668190; ‘Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt that left 29 dead’, Los Angeles Times, 27 May 2017, CXC9040668192; ‘Egypt Coptic Christians: IS claims attack’, British Broadcasting Corporation, 27 May 2017, CXC9040668194
Islamic State in Egypt is increasingly targeting Coptic Christians, with a May 2017 attack against a convoy of vehicles carrying dozens of Copts on pilgrimage to St Samuel Monastery near Minya, south of Cairo.[32] Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, in which militants, some wearing Egyptian military uniforms, stopped the convoy and killed 29 Copts after many refused to recite the shahada.[33]In response, the Egyptian government launched airstrikes against militant training camps inside Libya, which it said were connected to the attack.[34] The number of deaths since December 2016 is more than 100, including a Coptic priest in October 2017. There have been targeted killings in Cairo and North [35]Sinai as recently as January 2018.[36]
Official response
[32]‘Gunmen in Egypt Force Coptic Christian Pilgrims from Buses and Kill 28’, New York Times, 26 May 2017, CXC9040668190; ‘Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt that left 29 dead’, Los Angeles Times, 27 May 2017, CXC9040668192; ‘Egypt Coptic Christians: IS claims attack’, British Broadcasting Corporation, 27 May 2017, CXC9040668194
[33]‘Gunmen in Egypt Force Coptic Christian Pilgrims from Buses and Kill 28’, New York Times, 26 May 2017, CXC9040668190; ‘Islamic State claims responsibility for attack on Coptic Christians in Egypt that left 29 dead’, Los Angeles Times, 27 May 2017, CXC9040668192; ‘Egypt Coptic Christians: IS claims attack’, British Broadcasting Corporation, 27 May 2017, CXC9040668194
[34]‘Egypt Coptic Christians: IS claims attack’, British Broadcasting Corporation, 27 May 2017, CXC9040668194; ‘Gunmen in Egypt Force Coptic Christian Pilgrims from Buses and Kill 28’, New York Times, 26 May 2017, CXC9040668190
[35] ‘DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2017, p.12, CISEDB50AD4203; ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 24 November 2015, p.15, CISEC96CF13957
[36]‘DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2017, p.12, CISEDB50AD4203; ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 24 November 2015, p.15, CISEC96CF13957
DFAT assesses that while Egyptian authorities are generally committed to preventing communal violence, this commitment may vary between individuals and locations. Occasional violent incidents of communal violence are likely to continue to occur, especially in Upper Egypt and Minya in particular. Most cases are likely to be the result of small-scale localised disputes that take on a religious dimension. Most communal incidents in Egypt take the form of vandalism and destruction of property. High-profile incidents in which people are killed or churches attacked are not a frequent occurrence.[37]
[37]‘Country Information Report: Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2017, para 3.18, p. 12, CISEDB50AD4203
The Coptic Orthodox Church has expressed confidence in the efforts of the Egyptian state in protecting Copts against religiously motivated violence. In March 2017 the church issued a statement praising the efforts of authorities in defusing a religiously motivated incident in a village in Luxor.[38]Also in March 2017, the Coptic Pope said that Copts face problems, but they are minor and should be dealt with case by case. He said that the state is doing its best to secure churches, and that he could ask no more of the government in this regard.
EGYPT - HEALTH SYSTEM – MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT/ACCESS IN GENERAL
[38]‘DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 May 2017, p.12, CISEDB50AD4203; ‘DFAT Thematic Report: Egyptian Copts’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 24 November 2015, p.11, CISEC96CF13957
Healthcare in general in Egypt
According to the DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt dated 17 June 2019 the following is reported concerning the state of public health and the health system:
2.13 Article 18 of the Constitution states that every citizen is entitled to comprehensive health care. It commits the state to establishing a comprehensive health care system, maintaining public health facilities, and to allocating a percentage of no less than 3 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to health care. The World Health Organisation reported that the government spent 5.6 per cent of GDP on health care in 2014 (most recent available figure).
2.14 Responsibility for the provision of health is divided. The Ministry of Health funds primary care clinics and the Ministry of Higher Education funds university hospitals. A third strand of public health care is provided by various independent ministries, including defence, transport, aviation, electricity and interior, and the Health Insurance Organisation. Many Egyptians lack access to affordable public health care, particularly in rural areas, and the standard of public hospitals is very low. Quality in the private sector is better but limited to those few who can afford it.
2.15 In his June 2018 re-inauguration speech, President Sisi signalled health as one of his key priorities. The government is in the process of introducing a compulsory universal health insurance scheme that will provide basic healthcare coverage to around 30 per cent of the population who could not previously afford any. Fees are set based on income level, with the state covering participation by the poorest. The government launched the first stage of the scheme in July 2018.
2.16 The Ministry of Health announced in April 2018 that a nationwide survey found that a quarter of the population had some form of mental health issue. Of survey recipients, 43.7 per cent suffered from anxiety disorders, while 30.1 per cent suffered from depression linked to substance abuse. Rural governorates reported higher rates of mental health issues than their urban counterparts, with the governorate of Minya reporting the highest overall percentages of anxiety. The availability of mental health care is limited. Most mental health e
2.16 The Ministry of Health announced in April 2018 that a nationwide survey found that a quarter of the population had some form of mental health issue. Of survey recipients, 43.7 per cent suffered from anxiety disorders, while 30.1 per cent suffered from depression linked to substance abuse. Rural governorates reported higher rates of mental health issues than their urban counterparts, with the governorate of Minya reporting the highest overall percentages of anxiety. The availability of mental health care is limited. Most mental health resources are allocated to a small number of centralised psychiatric hospitals rather than being integrated into primary health care; the number of beds available for psychiatric patients requiring acute inpatient care is insufficient to meet demand; and medical schools and health institutions do not devote a significant number of hours given to covering mental health issues.
COVID-19’s dramatic impact on Egypt’s entire healthcare system compelled government and donor stakeholders to act[39]
[39] USAID Egypt Fact Sheet: Global Health, USAID, 10 June 2021, 20210617155654
Other challenges remain, as well. Overpopulation and its impact on a range of health issues threaten Egypt’s journey to self-reliance. Egypt’s 2014 Demographic and Health Survey recorded a globally unprecedented 17 percent increase in the country’s total fertility rate since 2008.
Rapidly rising Covid-19 infections are setting off alarm bells in Egypt, leading to a new raft of government restrictions and renewing fears the country's healthcare system could be pushed to the brink of collapse.[40]
Covid-19 infections and deaths have reached new heights in the Arab world's most populous state, amid warnings from health officials that the true figure of fatalities may be far higher than reported.
Fifty-six deaths were reported by health authorities that day, the highest daily total since August. With more than 7,600 deaths from Covid-19, Egypt has the second-highest death rate in Africa.
On 21 December, a member of the scientific committee of the Ministry of Health and Population estimated real infections to be 10 times higher than official figures.
"We have more coronavirus infections than what is announced," Mohamed al-Nady said. "They are at least ten times higher."
Egyptian authorities have tried to clamp down on those questioning its response or the official figures, including six doctors and pharmacists who were imprisoned on charges of "spreading false news" after raising concerns over the lack of protective equipment for healthcare workers.
Meanwhile, private hospitals are thriving, capitalising on the rising demand to charge steep prices. Still, even the relatively affluent can ill afford them.
In a high-profile case that highlights the differing challenges Egyptians face, Fouad Farag, a professor at Cairo University, and his dying wife were reportedly turned away from a state-run hospital in late December.
The couple then turned to a private hospital but left after they were unable to afford its increased costs. The professor's wife was later admitted to a public hospital, only after the minister of higher education personally intervened.
For those without money or high-level connections, bed shortages can mean returning to see out the illness or even die in cramped living quarters, where the contagion can freely spread.
[40] ‘Egypt’s healthcare system pushed to the brink as Covid-19 cases escalate’ Middle East Eye, 2 January 2021, 202101119133453
The Al Monitor reported ‘Pandemic further strains Egypt’s health system’ on 2 April 2020 the following:
Public service announcements on Egyptian TV pay tribute to Egypt's so-called White Army of nurses and doctors, hailing them as heroes. But the medical personnel on the front lines in Egypt's fight against the COVID-19 pandemic are speaking out against negligence in public hospitals and how the health system is ill-prepared to deal with the coronavirus. They lament the lack of testing and say a shortage in medical supplies and protective gear is endangering their lives and their families' lives.
On social media, some health practitioners have accused hospital administrators and the authorities of covering up the extent of the outbreak to prevent public panic.
Decades of underinvestment in Egypt's health sector have left many public hospitals dependent on donations for medical supplies and equipment. But the donations are not forthcoming.
This past week, prominent businessman Hussein Sabbour sparked controversy after calling on Egyptians to return to work immediately. "It is better [for the country] to forsake some lives than for Egypt to go bankrupt," he told Youm7 news portal. "If we stop working, the economy will go into recession. We are a weak country and have reached our limits."
Asked if he would donate money to help the government cope with the crisis, the manager of one of Egypt's leading real estate developers said he would not, as "paying my employees is a priority."
But Zayat stressed, "We are all in the same boat together."
"Now is the time for selfless acts. We must help each other through this crisis or else the consequences will be dire," he said.
Also, according to AllianazCare, ‘Healthcare in Egypt’[41] the Egyptian health system consists of two sectors: public and private. In general, the public healthcare system is of a low standard due to a lack of funding and understaffing. Government investment in the public health system is very low. There are significant differences between the availability of health services in the basic institutions in rural areas and those found in a big city such as Cairo. Most specialist procedures are carried out in Cairo. Further, although there have been attempts by the Egyptian government to reform public healthcare, the system is still substandard and almost certainly cannot on par with anything that a Western expat would be accustomed to. Even though it is provided free top locals and potentially to expats, many Egyptians avoid public hospitals due to factors such as outdated equipment, long queues for treatment, inadequately trained staff, and poor sanitation.
[41] See, AllianazCare, ‘Healthcare in Egypt’ accessed at:
Mental Health Treatment in Egypt
According to The National (Abu Dhabi), ‘Mental health hospitals overwhelmed as Egyptian families refuse home treatment’[42]
[42] The National (Abu Dhabi) 12 February 2021, 20210617160121
Last month security forces in northern Egypt arrested a woman who for two years allegedly kept her 28-year-old son in a locked room with an iron door because he was suffering from a mental illness. The mother said her son was being treated at the public Demeira Psychiatric Hospital in the Delta region and had been discharged. After his condition deteriorated again, the hospital refused to readmit him, Al Arabiya reported. Public health officials intervened to provide support for the family and ensure his readmission to Demeira. The director of the hospital declined to comment. The case highlights many of the challenges when dealing with mental illness in Egypt.
Shortages in space, funding and staff in the country's public psychiatric hospitals and the lack of a community-based approach to treating patients exacerbates Egypt's inability to provide the mental health services necessary. Meanwhile, family members treat mental illness as something shameful to be hidden away. “If someone suffers from a psychiatric disorder and they go to hospital, the expectation is that they get treated and come out again," said Dr Nasser Loza, director of the private Behman Psychiatric Hospital and chair of the Egyptian Society for the Rights of People with Mental Illness.
“But there seems to be a growing culture that people wouldn't mind keeping their son or daughter in hospital forever … and that's quite a task in a country of 100 million," said Dr Loza, who has been a psychiatrist for more than 25 years and previously worked for the government as secretary general for mental health. A quarter of Egyptians suffer from psychological disorders or symptoms of disorders, according to a 2018 National Mental Health Survey conducted by the Ministry of Health. Mental illness continues to be stigmatised in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. “Some people think mental disorders are a punishment from God or being possessed by a jinni or a ghost ... it's society-related, it's culture," said Dr Michael Fawzy, who for a decade worked as a consultant psychiatrist to Abassia, Egypt's oldest and largest psychiatric hospital.
Abassia was founded in the 1880s under the British protectorate and is a relic of Egypt's adoption of the western insane asylum model. The West has since moved on. During the 1960s, prominent voices in the psychiatric community began to advocate deinstitutionalisation – a movement to treat patients in the community, rather than in prison-like institutions. But the same did not happen in the Middle East and North Africa region, said Paris-based researcher Joelle Abi-Rached in a May 2020 article in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
“Egypt is way above the Mena region in terms of number of psychiatric beds in mental hospitals instead of regular hospitals or community-based centres," Dr Abi-Rached told The National. “This clearly shows how mental health care in Egypt ... is still rooted in an outdated, indeed more carceral approach, to mental illness."
There are 18 government mental health hospitals, but only two psychiatric units in general hospitals and one community-based hospital in Egypt's public health system, according to the World Health Organisation's 2017 Mental Health Atlas. Out of 10,753 inpatients, 9,752 were involuntary admissions.
Sixty per cent of the beds are occupied by long-stay patients, according to the WHO, and the country's public mental health hospitals are overwhelmed as a result, Dr Loza said. “We have a large number of beds in Egypt, but they're all blocked because the community will not take its patients back." Egypt's mental health sector is also underfunded, making up less than 1 per cent of total government health expenditure. “It's not about funding, it's about allocation of the resources," said Dr Fawzy, who is now technical adviser at the Ministry of Health. Inadequate staffing is another problem, with only 1.6 psychiatrists per 100,000 people in Egypt.
At the same time, the government has made efforts to improve mental health legislation and increase public awareness in recent years. “A movement against institutionalisation has started," said Dr Noha Sabry, a professor of psychiatry at Cairo University for more than 30 years.
The Egyptian parliament ratified the first Mental Health Act in 1944, but it was not until the Mental Health Act of 2009 that patients' rights were addressed in detail, such as the right of voluntary patients to consent to treatment. It also set criteria under which a person could be involuntarily admitted to mental health facilities.
President Abdel Fattah El Sisi ratified a new law in December amending some provisions of the 2009 legislation. It set penalties for that practising psychiatry without a licence and stipulated that a national council for mental health be formed to ensure patient safety and respect of their rights.
But critics of the new law – including the WHO, the World Federation for Mental Health and the World Psychiatric Association – say it also allowed doctors to give involuntary electroconvulsive therapy without a second opinion for up to three initial sessions.
“This legislation really takes psychotherapy away from psychologists … it empowers doctors at the expense of society and patients," Dr Loza said.
National awareness campaigns to reduce the stigma of mental illness began with televised adverts in 2007. In 2017, the Ministry of Health launched a campaign, El Saraya El Safra, which means “the yellow palace" – a slang term for a mental health hospital. “What we need to work on is educational programmes for the families – family therapy, family interventions," Dr Sabry said.
Dr Loza said he is now focusing on trying to change cultural attitudes. “You can't just lock millions of people up," he said. “At the end of the day families and the community have to take their share of the responsibility."
[Specified medical condition] Treatment in Egypt
According to the Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) – United Nations[43] Egypt's public health system is in disarray and needs to be better funded if it is to reach more people and provide more effective health care, say experts. "A lack of equipment, nurses, and doctors has rendered the nation's hospitals totally dysfunctional," said Khairy Abdel Dayem, chairman of Egypt's Medical Association. "The few patients who get [decent] medical treatment have to pay for it."
[43] ‘Healthcare system needs cash injection’, Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN), United Nations, 19 March 2012, CX283712
The country has a very high prevalence of chronic diseases, including liver infections, cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the World Health Organization. It also has higher infection rates for invasive medical, dental, or paramedic procedures than many other countries with comparable socio-economic conditions and hygiene standards, says WHO.
"Hospitals receive huge numbers of patients every day, placing an immense strain on the national health budget," said Mohamed Abdel Hamid, a senior Medical Association member.
Health spending amounted to 3.9 percent (4.5 million pounds or US$750 million) of Egypt's total budget in 2011, according to one newspaper (Arabic). Abdel Hamid and his colleagues are lobbying to raise health expenditure to 15 percent of the budget, but this could be wishful thinking, given projected budget deficits for next year due to election expenses and increased payments to state employees. "Health reform cannot happen without money," said Abdel Hamid. "Money will enable health officials to buy equipment, medicines, improve conditions inside hospitals, and train doctors and nurses. A low health budget for the next fiscal year just means this country's health failings will continue for another year."
The situation is made worse by the fact that nearly 40 percent of Egypt's 83 million people are not covered by the national health service because only people who work for the government and the private sector have state health insurance. Their subscription is debited from their salaries. While that could change if a proposed new health insurance law is passed by parliament, experts say the issue of funding will remain.
[Country information deleted].
[Country information deleted].
REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant claims to be a Coptic Christian
Based on the applicant’s evidence and the absence of any contrary information the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Coptic Christian.
The applicant’s experiences of discrimination and harm
In his education
Overall, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Coptic Orthodox Christian from Cairo, Egypt and that throughout his life in Egypt, the applicant has experienced various levels of discrimination – official and unofficial and that the independent country information available and referenced by the Tribunal in this decision confirms that this is the current situation in present day Egypt with regards to Coptic Orthodox Christians. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the discriminatory treatment throughout his education and in the course of his employment of which the applicant complained, even when viewed cumulatively, amounted to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of ‘religion’ as defined by s.5J(1)(a) of the Act. Although the applicant recounted incidents in which he was treated differently from other classmates and taunted by fellow classmates because of his religion. He told the Tribunal that he was provided with religious studies while at school outside of a normal classroom environment whilst Muslim students received their religion classes in a classroom. The Tribunal accepts that may have occurred, but the fact remains, that he was able to complete his entire schooling and to study successfully for a [degree] , at a local University. The applicant claimed to have suffered societal discrimination and attacks on his person that made him fear for his personal safety. In his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant recollected instances in his life as a student at school and high school and later at University where he was singled out by teaches and classmates because he was a known Coptic Orthodox Christian. That may have been the experience at the time or at a particular time of his life, the Tribunal does not doubt that that may have occurred, but the applicant gained with success his education.
In his employment
So far as the applicant’s employment is concerned, although he claimed he had difficulties carrying out his responsibilities as a ‘[Occupation 1]’ for an Egyptian [company], and in particular, he claimed that certain clients or potential clients that he approached refused to deal with him or place orders with him because he was a Coptic Christian, the Tribunal is of the view that this may have occurred on occasions but the applicant remained employed with this company for a considerable period of time until he decided to come to Australia. In particular, the applicant’s description of the discrimination he encountered was very minimal in the description the applicant provided. The applicant provided an overall opinion that he faced difficulties [doing his job] because he was a Coptic Christian, but he did not provide the Tribunal with a description of a particular instance where his religion caused him to fail in his [Occupation 1] duties. The applicant also did not provide the Tribunal with description of what his employers thought of his low [performance] as the company’s representative in the wider Egyptian market. For example, was he in any way questioned by his employer about these reactions of potential clients to him being a Christian [doing the job]? What did the management of the company say to him concerning his performance as their [Occupation 1]? The applicant provided very little evidence to the Tribunal on how his religion caused him issues while being employed. The Tribunal does recognise that societal attitudes do play a significant role in Egyptian society especial when one is a Coptic Orthodox Christian but on the evidence as provided by the applicant, the Tribunal accepts that there may have been some discrimination encountered by the applicant because of his religion when he was employed as a [Occupation 1], however, the applicant was not on the evidence before the Tribunal caused significant economic hardship or denied the capacity to earn a livelihood and the Tribunal does not accept that that the discrimination which the applicant experienced was so serious or so detrimental ion its effect on him as to amount to persecution for the purposes of the s.5J(1)(a).
The Tribunal accepts that, having been absent from Egypt since the applicant came to Australia in 2009, the employment situation may have changed in Egypt. However, the applicant on the evidence before the Tribunal is a well-qualified individual and has worked successfully in Australia. Although the Tribunal accepts that there is a low level of discrimination against Copts in public and private employment, the Tribunal does not accept, therefore, that there is a real chance that the applicant will face discrimination in employment for reasons of his religion as a Coptic Orthodox Christian which is so serious or so detrimental in its effect on her as to amount to a real risk of persecution as provided for in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act if he returns to Egypt now or in in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Intelligence interrogations
The applicant claimed that his father was interrogated by Egyptian intelligence officers who had intercepted their home telephone in 2000 and that this incident would be contained on his government records for the foreseeable future.
At the hearing the applicant was asked by the Tribunal to recount this episode in detail. The applicant stated that a girl (a Muslim) a ‘friend of his sister’ visited their home and had expressed an interest in visiting the local Coptic Orthodox Church which was frequented by the applicant and his family. The girl’s parents lived in [Country 1]; the applicant told the Tribunal. And she had made a number of calls to them from the family home’s telephone. It was also said by the applicant that this girl showed an interest in the local church’s activities and would often remove her headscarf (hijab).
The applicant claimed that this girl and her visits to his family’s home came to the attention of Egyptian intelligence, who suspected that the applicant’s family was involved in some attempt to convert this girl to the Coptic Christian faith. Again, when the applicant was asked by the Tribunal to explain the sequence of events that led to the Egyptian intelligence interviewing his late father, the applicant merely told the Tribunal that – one day Egyptian intelligence came to his father’s shop to ask him some questions concerning the ‘girl’s calls to [Country 1]’. The applicant was asked to explain in detail, what were the calls all about to [Country 1]? The applicant told the Tribunal that his sister’s friend was ‘calling her parents’.
The Tribunal was told that the applicant’s father was detained by Egyptian intelligence for the reason being, ‘religion’ but was subsequently released but ‘monitored.’ The applicant claims that he has an intelligence profile, and this could cause him problems if he returns to Egypt in future. The Tribunal does not accept the claim that the applicant has an intelligence profile as a result of intelligence having detained and questioned his late father.
The information concerning his father’s detention and questioning is very sparse and very little detail attaches. Moreover, the applicant was not the subject of intelligence interest nor did he encounter any problems when he applied for his passport and visa in order to come to Australia for study. If the applicant had some profile actual or imputed as a result of his father’s activities (due to religious or political beliefs) which concern the intelligence authorities the applicant would have been questioned at the point of him having made an application for his Egyptian passport and would have been questioned about the purposes of his intention to travel overseas. On the evidence before the Tribunal this was not the case and therefore the Tribunal does not accept as was claimed by the applicant that because of his (late) father had been a person of interest to the intelligence services, the applicant also had an ‘intelligence profile’ and was a person of interest.
The applicant being persecuted for his religious beliefs – being a Coptic Orthodox Christian
As previously discussed by the Tribunal in its reasons earlier, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant is a Coptic Orthodox Christian. The Tribunal also accepts that in the past, as the applicant had (recounted) encountered verbal abuse, threats, and physical attacks on account of this Christianity. As a Christian, the applicant has no profile as a religious activist, or a person involved in the day-to-day activities of his local church and Coptic Orthodox community. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes and finds that the fear with respect to his religion is not well-founded nor is there any risk of harm. The reason for the Tribunal’s conclusions in this regard is because the applicant’s evidence was not clear, coherent and lack substance. His claim, that somehow Egyptian state intelligence would be interested in him because of his religion alone does not present itself as convincing because there was no evidence put to the Tribunal to suggest this.
The applicant was in no way constrained by any official when he decided to leave Egypt, nor was he question for his reasons for choosing to leave Egypt. Therefore, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s general risk of harm as an ordinary Coptic Orthodox Christian, who avoids church events and does not take an active role in church/community activities. In considering the applicant’s general risk of harm, the Tribunal has considered the current political stability and security situation in Egypt. DFAT in its report on Egypt indicates that, under the Sisi government, the security forces see it as being in their interest to be responsive to Coptic Christian concerns.[44] Country information supports the opinion that the applicant will be afforded effective state protection, especially in an urban area such as Shobra El Khema, the applicant’s home district to which he will return.[45]
[44] ‘DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt’, Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 19 May 2017, at p. 12, CISEDB50AD423; and ‘DFAT Thematic Report – Copts’, Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 24 November 2015, at p. 15 CISEC96CF13956.
[45] see, Migration Act 1958 in particular, the relevant s. 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.
The applicant, in the Tribunal’s opinion, is able to seek for himself state protection in Egypt and that this protection would not be withheld or refused for any reason including his Coptic Orthodox Christian religion. Having in mind the enhanced security measures in play (currently) in Egypt, the Tribunal concludes and finds that the applicant does not face a real risk or have a well-founded fear of harm if he were to return to Egypt in the reasonably foreseeable future because of his religion and religious beliefs being a Coptic Christian or for any other reason as is provided for by s. 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
The applicant’s delay in seeking protection
The Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed to feared harm in Egypt prior to his arrival in Australia in 2009. The Tribunal also noted for its review of the Department’s file, that the applicant had many opportunities to seek Australia’s protection before he actually decided to do so on 25 October 2016 when his application for protection was submitted to the Department.
The applicant was granted a visa to travel on 23 February 2009 and he arrived in Australia on [date] April 2009. The applicant made no efforts in the time that lapsed to seek protection. In the period he was here in Australia, the situation in his homeland deteriorated significantly with the fall of the Mubarak regime and the sudden rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi and the applicant did not seek to acquaint himself with the avenues provided by this country for protection of those who actually faced the risk of harm in their homeland instigated by radical religious elements within government and society. Indeed, after his arrival in Australia in 2009, the applicant made a number of multiple applications for temporary visas and for a ministerial intervention concerning his situation. The applicant also became a unlawful non-citizen for a period of time before submitting his application for protection in October 2016. This delay in making an application for protection, adds weight to the Tribunal’s conclusions about the applicant’s credibility concerning his claims of fearing harm (as Coptic Christian) in Egypt.
Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee as is defined by s. 5H(1) of the Act.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
In considering the totality of the above matter in assessing the applicant’s claims, for complementary protection, the Tribunal makes this summary finding: based on all available information and evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk of significant harm, including the applicant will suffer harm if he is arbitrarily deprived of his life; the death penalty will be carried out on him; he will be subjected to torture; he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment as required by s. 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).
RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF MINISTERIAL INTERVENTION
In the applicant’s post-hearing submissions submitted to the Tribunal on 11 April 2022 a request was made for the Tribunal to refer this case to the Minister for consideration in the event the applicant is found not to meet the criteria for a grant of a protection visa under s. 36(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal notes that under s. 417 of the Migration Act , the Minister has a discretionary power to intervene in a matter and to grant a visa to an applicant where he considers it would be in the ‘public interest’ to do so. The Minister’s Guidelines state that the public interest may be served where the Australian government ‘responds with care and compassion.’
The Minister’s Guidelines state that the public interest may be served where the Australian government ‘responds with compassion and care’ where an individual’s situation involves ‘unique and exceptional circumstances’, which are said to include:
§Compassionate circumstances regarding your age and/or health and/or psychological state, that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship.
The Tribunal draws the Department’s and Minister’s attention to paragraphs [41] to [53] of this decision, where the Tribunal outline’s in detail the applicant’s medical history and continuing concerns as expressed and described by his treating doctors. Indeed, it is of particular concern to the Tribunal, the conclusions made by the applicant’s treating doctors that the applicant has a considerable concern (which is on-going) as far as it concerns his [medical] condition and his mental well-being.
The Tribunal considered detailed country information (see, paragraphs [65] to [68]) concerning the state of the health system in Egypt, the applicant’s country of origin, and also considered information provided by the applicant’s legal counsel which described a very difficult situation with regards to the Egyptian health system (both private and public) having little ability to assist or to provide assistance to a person such as the applicant who is suffering from a [medical]condition [and] his mental health.
100. The doctors’ reports on the applicant’s condition and future prognosis provide, in the Tribunal’s opinion, a sound basis for a request to the Minister to intervene because of the existence of compassionate circumstances regarding [the applicant’s] health and psychological state.
101. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the circumstances warrant that it recommends to the Minister/and/or the Department (in the Minister’s name) that he/it conduct an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances, including matters raised above and accordingly, provides an appropriate submission to the Minister or his Department consideration.
DECISION
102. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
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.
…
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Natural Justice
0
0
0