1837291 (Refugee)

1837291 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 5182 (28 November 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1837291
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Egypt
MEMBER:Rodger Shanahan
DATE:28 November 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.

Statement made on 28 November 2022 at 4:43pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – religion – Christianity – discrimination and threats in workplaces, especially from one colleague – accusation of negligence after death of patient and demand for payment by brother – court summonses for contempt of religion – fear of harm from extremists – continuing attacks and threats to family – credibility – vague and implausible claims and evidence – no attempt to seek work at church hospital – no information about result of court proceedings provided – no public activity or profile – member of family unit – elderly father – country information – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other 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 3 December 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Egypt, applied for the visas on 6 August 2018.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 25 August 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the first-named applicant’s sister. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic (Standard) and English languages.
The applicants were 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.
Claims and evidence
Protection Visa Application
The applicant provided the following statement in support of his protection visa application:
I got my Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, in 1987, with good grades. I spent my internship year from 1988 to 1989 in [Province 1].
I joint the armed forces, as a [Rank] from March [year] till September [year], then I got my government job as Anaesthetist in [ Hospital 1]. My salary was so low it hardly covered my transport expenses.
As usual the first thing people want to know was my religion, and that is not strange considering we were in Egypt, as people got classified as Muslim and not Muslim. Religion is also shown in the ID card or in a National Identity number or from any other official document.
It was natural to know the religion of a person from his or her name, such as Mohamed, Ahmed and Ali are very obvious Muslim names, on the other hand Botros, George and Abd El Messih are very obvious Christian names. But my name was not that clear as [Given names] all are shared names between Christians and Muslims, so some are forced to ask me directly about my religion or indirectly, by way of saying 'are you going to the noon or evening prayers?' This always frustrated me because religion shouldn't affect the way people deal with each other, but it did in many ways.
Some of the doctors encouraged me to buy a mobile Anaesthesia machine, so I can go to their clinics and operate with them. It was common by that time to perform operations in private clinics since there weren't any private hospitals.
Indeed, I did buy the mobile Anaesthesia machine and a car, I borrowed money to do that, as I was in the beginning of my practical life. I started to work, and I went from clinic to clinic with my mobile Anaesthesia machine, I wasn't the only one who did that but most of the Anaesthesia doctors also followed the same method.
By that time, there were no mobile phones so the only way to communicate was through the land line of the hospital as the reception receive the calls and transfer it to the doctor's residents where we all the doctor resided in. When I received a call from out of the hospital, the switch person often told them that I was not available and there are many other Muslim doctors available in his place. I was surprised when they told me about that and from then on, I had to fix set appointment for my work in private clinics, so they don't try to reach me using the hospital switchboard.
That was the beginning of trouble, one day I was going with my car to a far suburb to administer anaesthetic for a case, but at the red traffic light, when I lowered my speed to prepare to stop, a car hit me from the rear, causing my car to hit a ute in front of it. I found myself out of the car from the impact of the accident and my car was terribly smashed from the front and the rear.
I didn't know what to do, the traffic officer told me 'May God compensate you for it', I told him to take the legal action taken in this situation, but as I was talking to him the car which hit me from the rear sped away, but I managed to take the plate number.
I went to the police station with one of my friends to report the incident, and the police officer told me to come the next day to see the result, then I took my car to a smash repairer.
The next clay I went to the police station to ask about the report number, and I was surprised that there was no report and as if the incident didn't occur, they told me it's no use, don't even try, no one will serve you.
As days went by, I started to carry my Anaesthesia machine in public transport as I didn't have a car, it was so tiring and time wasting, but what can I do, I had to go on, so I can pay my loan, also I needed the money to fix my car.
The rate of my work went down gradually, I wondered why this doctor stopped calling me and also why did the other one stopped too, until [Dr. A], one of my colleagues ([Dr. A] the [Specialist 2]) told me that he was so sorry that happened to me as there is great pressure from one of the Islamic religion men who made a religious fatwa ([Mr B]) that helping a Christian to earn money is not permissible in sharee'ah, and it also prohibited for the Muslims to work with a none Muslims. They were saying that it is more than enough for me that I work for the infidel Egyptian government.
After a while the work stopped totally, I found myself a simple employee with the minimum rate of income in this place, so I started to search for other places to work.
I appealed to move to [Province 1], in May 1995 but it was refused without reasons, then also to [Province 2], this was not even answered. When I went to the office secretary he told me that the hospital needed me, and they cannot move me, although there were enough anaesthetic doctors in the department and they accepted other transfers made by Muslim Doctors.
I went to the health ministry with my request, the Minister agreed but the hospital manger decided not to implement the order and told me I could resign if I was not happy. I went again to the Ministry and met the deputy Minister, who helped me to mandate for one year, which could be renewed for only another year.
I didn't have any other option but to agree to this arbitrariness, In December 1995 I went to work there, so I can be away from [Province 2] and I went to [Province 1] to work in a very small hospital, after a while I asked to travel to [Country 1] as I got married by that time and had a child.
The officials didn't agree right away, although there was a resolution from the PR minister saying that everyone has the right to have unpaid leave to travel abroad for work, they agreed however after insistence and pertinacity from my side.
I travelled to [City] in [Country 1] in December 1998, I worked in [Hospital 2], most of the doctors there were Egyptian, as usual they wanted to take me with them to the Mosque to pray there, I told them that I am Christian, and gradually they made up stories about me to isolate me, and put pressure on me to convert me to Islam.
Initially my contract included four weeks of annual leave to go back to Egypt to see my family. However, the manager refused to allow me to go back to Egypt after working there for the first year. He gave everyone their leave and kept me to cover other doctors on leave. After suffering for nearly two years, they approved my leave and to ensure that I return, they kept some of my salary to guarantee that I will come back and gave me a return visa, but I left with no intention to go back.
I started to look for another contract in [Country 1], I found one in [Hospital 3] in [another location], I travelled there with my family, the place was better than the last one.
When I went back to Egypt during my annual holidays, I tried to renew my leave for one more year , the official didn't agree this time too, I complained to the Administrative Prosecution, they also didn't give me my right in unpaid leave and one of them told me that because I am Christian I must not go to [Country 1] the land of Islam and they will not help me to do that.
I didn't have any other solution but to resign from the health ministry, and so I did, it was to be agreed to within I5 days, but I didn't receive a response from them until I travelled back to [Country 1].
After I spent nearly nine years in [Country 1], I went back to Egypt, I searched for a job, until I found a job in [Hospital 4] in [Region] in Egypt and I stayed there for 3 years then I found a new job [with an Employer] as Anaesthesia specialist in [Tanta].
As usual the first thing they wanted to know was my religion, but I ignored that and worked very hard to prove myself. There were many doctors who belong to Muslim Brotherhood and to fanatic Salafi groups, I tried not to deal with them personally, but only in work matters. Most of them tried to provoke me to talk about religion as they scoff at Christianity and Christians I always avoided the discussion with them,
The one person I tried my best to avoid was [Dr. C], [Specialist 3] and very fanatic as he told me many times that we should not be working with them as we are Christians (second grade citizens), and the government is Infidel as it provides jobs for us and make us equal to them.
No one even tried to stop him from his ridicule towards me and his mockery and sneer at me, He didn't even respond to a greeting from me, he never said Happy Easter or Merry Christmas, also never accept to receive congratulation in Ramadan or any other occas10n.
I had tried so hard to avoid working with him, as he always created problems for me, but I had to work with him most of the time, but I was very cautious in dealing with him.
In April 2017, I anesthetized a patient his name [Mr D] [Age] years old, he was having [an operation]. As he suffers from high blood pressure, I did my job in a way that suits his condition and his age.
During the operation the patient had a sudden cessation of heart muscle, we started cardiopulmonary resuscitation with the help of a special team also with electric shocks finally we retrieved him back, and the heart started to work again but there were damages in the brain centres.
The patient remained in the intensive care unit in a coma for [Number 3] days then [died]. In situations like this, investigation about my performance and administration of the Anaesthetic was done to ensure that proper procedure and drills were adhered to. After the investigation, it was decided that all was clear, all actions I had taken were sound and there is was no default on my end.
On the 9th of April 2017, there was a church bombing in Tanta, in St. George church in the Palm Sunday, I had a day off to attend the prayers I was at [City 2] and after the prayers we knew about the bombing in Tanta and Alexandria. Horror and panic prevailed all Christians, the call for help and blood donation for the injured and wounded was needed, as there were so many injured and the blood bank used all the stored blood.
Many of the youth went to donate and I went too to help in saving the injured people who were scattered in the hospitals of Tanta, and the hospital I work in was one of them, so for sure I went to help. I reached there within half an hour and the ER was full of the injured and wounded from the church some of them already in the operation room.
I started to help some of the doctors, but they looked at me strangely, I was surprised when [Dr C] came to me asking why are you here? isn't today your holiday? I didn't answer him because I was in great distress and sorrow for all what happened and all the horrible view of the remains of injured people who lost their limbs or eyes from the blast of the church bombing.
He took it further telling me sure you are here because they are Copts like you, would you do the same if they are Muslims... I told him they are all human beings, and this is a painful accident and as a doctor I must do all my best to help. I was very upset to learn [of] one of the victims of the church bombings, [Dr. E], he was a senior [Specialist 4].
The following days I avoided talking to him entirely, he started to defame me saying that I am preaching Christianity as I used to say a silent prayer for God and mark the sign of the cross before I started my work, so the Lord may help me. After that I felt big difference in the way my colleagues deal with me, the hospital manager called me to ask me about my colleagues charging me of preaching Christianity and that is prohibited in Egypt, I denied that but he told me that he knows about my good character and hardworking personality also told me that he wish if I am a Muslim, so I would have a another great position, I pretended that his words didn't affect me and excused from him and went back to work.
That was in September 2017, I applied for a cessation of my contract with them, but when the hospital manager asked me about my reasons for this action, I told him thework environment is not appropriate for me anymore, but I didn't give details. He asked me to delay this decision and to continue to work until they decide what to do. I wasn't talking to anyone so as not to argue with them, even when I heard them speaking about me, I didn't answer.
In Christmas 2018, Some of the doctor and nursing staff who used to wish me Merry Christmas, many of them did not wish me a Merry Christmas this year, as they were incited by this doctor to isolate me. But what happened to me later was like I was hit by an earthquake which turned my whole life into a living hell.
Around the time of the annual memorial of the victims of the Tanta church, we wanted to organise a speech for the memory of [Dr. E] [to] be addressed in a gathering of friends and family. I was talking about [Dr. E] and how he didn't deserve what happened to him. Out of nowhere came [Dr. C] and said you can talk on behalf of yourself, not on behalf of everyone in the hospital. He said, 'He was punished for going into a church, and one day all churches will be closed, and if someone dares to go they will be scattered'. Then he continued talking about the martyrs of St. George Church in Tanta, he was saying that they are not martyrs they are Infidels, also how the Muslim nurses and doctors saved a non-Muslims, who should not be saved in the hospital but must be left to die.
I could not stay silent anymore, I told him, they are Egyptian and have all the rights by the constitution and no one should be denied medical treatment clue to colour, sex or religion. He told me that in the Constitution of an Infidel country, but the Law of Allah is another thing.
I told him that these are inciting words and he should be held accountable by law for what he was saying. I also told him that he should respect other religions and that I doubted that any religion, if it's really a godly heavenly religion, would ask its members to hate and incite killings towards members of other religions and call them infidels.
I told him as a Christian my religion teaches me to love and respect other people of different religions and I would expect the same from his religion. He should feel remorse for these people martyred rather than wishing them death. He told me you are an infidel yourself and how dare I compare Muslim religion to Christianity and how dare I hint that Islam is not a heavenly religion. I told him that I did not say that, I said that no heavenly religion would ask to kill and hate other people. He said that I would regret what I said, and he knew very well how to stop me from working here and he would make my life a living hell, then he left me.
Later on, one of the assistants in the operating room, his name is [Mr F], told me that [Dr. C] contacted the family of the patient [Mr D], that died a year ago and told them that the cause of death was due to the negligence of the Anaesthesia doctor as he did not follow the right steps of the Anaesthesia also was not available in the operation room to save him during the cardiac arrest.

This of course was not true, as I was in the operation room all the time and during the time the heart stopped.
I also supervised all the required phases and helped the special team in the Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, I also transferred the patient to the intensive care unit.
When I asked him why he did all that, he told me that he didn't say anything yet, and I haven't seen anything from him yet. [Mr F] also told me that [Dr. C] also asked the assistants in the operating room to say the same to the family of the dead man, but they didn't agree.
After a few days, I had a phone call from [the] brother of the dead man who wanted to meet me regarding the settlement of his brother's death, I replied that he can ask the hospital all he wants, he told me that he does not believe what the hospital has said and he came to learn from the other surgeon that I was negligence in his brother care.I told him to file a complaint, he replied that the country government are Infidels and he wants his brother right by Sharia Law. I refused to speak to him further about this and told him if he had a problem with me to take it further with the right authority.
I went and told the hospital management about the phone call I received, but I was shocked when the hospital told me that the hospital doesn't want problems and they had closed the issue from their encl and don't want it reopened and to solve my problems outside the hospital. He called me again after two days and told me he will never leave his brother right by Sharia, I told him that I did everything to save his brother and there was no negligence from my side, but he called me a liar and that the surgeon told him that I neglected his brother severely causing his death and I have to pay for it. I told him that there is law in this country, he told me you are Christian, and we are not equal in front of the law and above all he does not acknowledge the law and will apply Sharia Law.
He said that according to Sharia law, I must pay the price of 100 Camels, and each camel is worth 30000 pounds, that means that the cost of 100 Camel is 3 Million pounds, J told him if I worked for 100 years I will not get a Million pounds.
Then he said we will apply Allah Sharia as an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth and a head for a head, (meaning I should die). I hung up immediately, I was shaking profoundly.
I went home I couldn't think or talk to anyone I was so afraid, but when my wife asked me I told her what happened, we couldn't believe what was happing to us.
The next day I received many calls from the same number I didn't answer, the fear inside me doubled, I told one of my relative [about] what's happened he told me to talk to the police.
I went to the police station and told them, but they told me that is a medical issue which is not their jurisdiction, and that I should go to the Doctors Syndicate. I told them I received threatening phone calls and how can this not be in their jurisdiction, they said this man recited a verse, are we going to get him into legal trouble for knowing his Quran, they said there is no threat in these calls and also no one harmed, they told me to go to the Doctors Syndicate.
My wife advised me to change my phone number and I did. I only gave my number to the hospital, so they can call me if there's an emergency case or as needed for my work.
The great shock was the following week when [the brother of the deceased man], called me on my new number telling me that its so easy to know my address and my phone number and there is no escape from him as he will know my whereabouts any time he wanted, and he could easily get to me.
As scared as I was, I didn't want to show him this fear, I shouted at him I will not stand still if anyone get near my house and my children, he said we have nothing to do with your children you are the only one accountable according to the Sharia. I told him what you want from me, there was no negligence from my part, I told you before go complain, he said we only believe in Sharia. I shouted at him then every time you talk to me you say Sharia, what Sharia, is there any one in this time follow Sharia, a very old law which belonged to retarded people, he told me take care of what you are saying you wronged the Islam religion and the Sharia and he said that he is recording the phone call and will accuse me of religion contempt and I was also wrong when I said a prayer which not from Islam in the operation room.
I told him you are the one who want to apply Sharia where we have civil law. He threatened me saying that I was in contempt the Islam and Sharia and he is recording this call and will provide this to the police and the court 1 will be accused of contempt of religion. Then he hung up.
I felt like I cannot see or hear or say anything I felt totally in complete paralysis I had to do something fast, I told my wife what happened she fell apart because we know many Christian even kids who were convicted and jailed with the charge of religion contempt, it's a ready-made charge to take revenge from any Christian person.
My wife and I agreed that I must hide and change my phone number once more, I went to live in one of my relative flats and he brought me a new sim card. I hid my car and didn't go to work after I told them that I fell and broke my arm.
I called the Doctors Syndicate, told them about all the situation without telling my name as I was so terrified, they told me it's not their field, and that they would go according to the hospital report, which showed there was no negligence and if I felt tlueatened this was a criminal matter and to go to the security authorities.
My wife contacted the Bishop of [City 2] who told her that I must travel outsides as soon as possible as he knows many of the cases ended up in Jail and offered me a house to hide in, also Bishop of [City 4] advised me to travel outside as soon as possible.
My wife called my sister in Australia and told her what happened, then she sent me and my father an invitation to visit. In the mean time a person came to ask my neighbours and the nearby stores about my whereabouts, my wife was so scared, as she was alone with the kids, she closed all the windows and doors and unplugged the land line phone.
One of our trusted neighbours [brought] her whatever she needed from outside. Different people came everyday waiting and watching my home to see who went and came and waiting for me to turn up.
My youngest son was [in] high school, only one week left for his exams, my wife tried so hard not to let him be affected by the situation, so all the years effort not go to waste. My older son in the last year of [Subject], he is the one aware of all the circumstances. One of the people who came to ask about me, was able to know my relatives and their addresses. We knew it was a matter of time after they would find out my whereabouts. My wife told me and asked me to leave [City 2] ASAP.
Shortly enough after I left the flat of my relative, they went and asked about me there, but thank God I had already left. After that I went to [a friend]'s house [in] [Location] and I stayed there for a week. Then I went to Alexandria to one of my relative until I travel outside. All were helping me, but I lost any ability to think, I couldn't eat I was very desperate.
My priority was to travel before things get to the next level and the police issued a seizure order for contempt of religion. My sister bought a ticket for me and my father even before the visa was issued, so we can find places in the plane. It felt like we were in a race against time till we got the visa, we travelled from Alexandria airport hoping from the Lord that there is no order in the airport to prevent my travel.
Although I managed to escape I am very sad and depressed as I left my lovely family there in the hands of the Lord to protect them from the dark devils. I also left a successful career many envy me for the famous position I achieved, all for the fear of Sharia followers who think they are above the law, also the law of religion contempt which ifl didn't escape from I would have lost my freedom and life.
I had to travel with my father, as I care for him, my father is over [Age] years old and he is fully dependent on me and he has no one else to care for him except me.
AAT Hearing
The second-named applicant was not in attendance and the first-named applicant said that his father was old and sick and remained at home. It was put to him that arrangements could have been made for a video or audio hearing for him. He had no medical evidence but said that he had copies of his medication on his phone. The first-named applicant was reminded that the Tribunal’s decision would be binding on both applicants even if the second-named applicant had not attended. He would not have the ability to present in person any individual claims he may have. The applicant said his father didn’t know anything about the application and hadn’t attended the first interview. Asked if the second-named applicant had a claim separate to the applicant’s, he said that he didn’t.
The Tribunal considered adjourning the hearing and/or inviting the second-named applicant to a hearing. It was decided not to pursue this option given the applicant’s father had no claims of his own and was simply applying as a family member of the first-named applicant.
The applicant claimed that he feared being jailed or killed by Islamist extremists if he were to return to Egypt. There was no group in particular, just Islamist extremists in particular. He had been accused of contempt of religion, cursing the shari’ah and a complaint had been filed against him and a public prosecutor has summoned him for interrogation. He could lose his life inside or outside jail, for the same reasons.
He was summonsed in 2018. Asked if any legal proceedings had taken place subsequently, he said that there was a court case but he didn’t go – he was told this since he had been in Australia. Asked if there was a judgment or the case had proceeded to trial, he claimed that the lawyer told him about the proceedings and the police had searched the house and told his wife that the applicant should surrender himself. His wife asked his lawyer to check what was happening and he got the court documents, sent them to the applicant who translated them.
Asked whether an arrest warrant had been issued, whether the court case had proceeded and if so what occurred, he claimed that there were two summons – [December] 2018 and then later that month. It was put to him that this was three and a half years ago and he was asked if the court proceedings had been concluded, he said that he hadn’t asked. The lawyer who got the paperwork was just a friend. He was asked if he had asked the friend (or the church) to check about the case. He said that he was told by his wife and relatives in Egypt that it was causing him great emotional distress so he should forget about it.
He was told that the Tribunal wanted to get the sequence of events correct. The applicant was also well-educated (he was a doctor) so he should reasonably know. The court case was in December 2018 about contempt of religion – he was asked what the result was and was asked if he had documentation from the outcome of the case. He said that he thought there may be a verdict but no one was telling him because they were concerned for his mental health. It was put to him that the onus was on him to convince the Tribunal about the veracity of his claim, so it would be reasonable to believe that he would be able to source a court verdict and present it to the Tribunal tp strengthen his claim. Just because he made an oral claim the Tribunal wasn’t expected to accept it at face value.
He said that he understood but he had translated and provided the court documents. It was put to him that he had not provided the originals and the Tribunal had to be alert to the possibility of document fraud. He said he understood. It was put to him that there would have been a range of other documents such as a second summons, arrest warrant, court outcome, fine or the like. Yet the applicant had just provided what he claimed was a single summons.
The applicant was asked to outline his claims. He said that he had been a doctor in Egypt and [Country 1] for 25 years. He had faced many problems in and outside work – it was largely because of religious discrimination. He had mentioned the instances in his submission – the police never provided protection.
Asked why he feared serious harm in Egypt, he claimed that he felt there was a real risk he would be killed. It was different to previously. We often see people charged with contempt of religion imprisoned for three to five years. He was asked to outline his particular circumstances. In April 2017 he performed anaesthesia for someone who had cardiac arrest and died [Number] days later in hospital. The surgeon was an extremist with whom he always got into discussions. The surgeon subsequently used what occurred against the applicant.
In 2017 there was an explosion in a church in Tanta and many people died and the applicant was upset. A doctor [he knew] was one of the people who died. The surgeon with whom the applicant had arguments about religion and the blast in Tanta, called the family of the dead patient and told them the applicant was to blame. The patient’s brother then called the applicant and accused him of causing his brother’s death and asked to meet him. He asked the applicant to pay diy’a (blood money). The meeting never occurred.
The applicant tried to avoid him and changed his number but the brother got the new number and called him. Asked if there was an investigation following the patient death, the applicant said there was a hospital inquiry that said all the right procedures were carried out. Asked if a death certificate was issued, he said that it was and stated cardiac arrest as the cause of death.
He was asked why the surgeon ([Dr C]) told the family that the applicant caused the death if the inquiry cleared him. He claimed that long discussions took place for over a year between the applicant and [Dr C], and [Dr C] derided Christians and believed them to be second-class citizens. [Dr C] even believed the state was kufr because the Constitution treated religious equally. Asked how this progressed to [Dr C] telling the deceased’s family that the applicant was to blame, the applicant said that on the anniversary of the Tanta explosion in April 2018 (when a memorial service was to be held in a church) the applicant wanted to get up and say a few words in support of their [deceased doctor] and wanted to write a speech, so he was talking to work colleagues about what he should write.
[Dr C] came along and said that the applicant should not talk about anyone else, only himself and that [Dr E] deserved his death as he went to church and one day all churches would be closed. [Details deleted]. He continued to call the Christians kuffar and said that Christians should have been left to die. The applicant was upset at this and told [Dr C] that he would be charged for what he was saying, and that people believing in God should hope that all people went to heaven and that there was no justification for hate.
[Dr C] was angry and accused the applicant of saying that Islam was not a heavenly religion – the applicant denied this. Asked if he took [Dr C]’s behaviour to the hospital administration. He said he spoke to the manager and there were lots of witnesses. They didn’t do anything – asked exactly what they did, whether there was a mediation or they spoke to [Dr C], he said no. The applicant had already given the hospital his resignation - [Dr C] had accused the applicant to everyone of evangelising. Asked if the applicant reported to the hospital administration or police that [Dr C] had called the government kufri given the Sissi government would not have looked kindly if a doctor in a government hospital was saying these things.
He claimed that 90 per cent of doctors had the same view and expressed it, but he never raised it. The applicant said that he had resigned prior to this because he had been accused of preaching as he said a short prayer and crossed himself before each operation. [Dr C] told everyone he preached Christianity so everyone avoided him. He resigned in September 2017 but the hospital refused to accept it.
Asked if there were Coptic or other Christian hospitals in Cairo or Alexandria, he said there were Christian ones but he didn’t know if there were Coptic ones. Country information was put to him that there was at least one Coptic hospital in Alexandria and other Christian ones and there were several Coptic and Christian ones in Cairo – he was asked why he didn’t resign from the government hospital and then go to the bishop and see if he could work at one of the Coptic hospitals once there was a vacancy. Asked if he ever attempted to change his work location to find one more conducive to his faith, or whether he ever approached the church to assist him to find a new hospital. It was put to him that the Tribunal found it strange that he didn’t know the presence of Coptic hospitals in Cairo and Alexandria given Tanta was about halfway between them.
He said that if he thought of moving for work this should have happened before the problems. He left his work as he didn’t want to work any more as he was fearful of his life. It was put to him that the Tribunal was trying to understand what steps he had taken before he applied for protection to see whether it accepted his story was true. It was strange that if he was receiving such a hard time from Muslim doctors in a government hospital why he didn’t seek a Christian hospital by himself or through the church.
He claimed that it was very difficult to work in Alexandria or Cairo in Coptic or non-Coptic hospital because of his and his family’s circumstances. Asked what these were he said it would be hard to drive there on a daily basis – it was put to him that he could have arranged to live there or stay there in church accommodation. He had provided a letter from the bishop’s office that said the church tried to give him support while he was trying to run away. It seemed to the Tribunal that the church could have helped overcome any difficulties he had with accommodation or the like.
He said the bishop could easily write a letter but finding him work was really big for him. It was hard for him to work in these cities because of his age. It was put to him that the fact he didn’t try was strange to the Tribunal. Being in Australia was much further away from his family than being in Cairo or Alexandria so being away from his family didn’t appear to be a ‘no-go’ issue. The fact he didn’t know about the hospitals in Alexandria and Cairo would indicate that he hadn’t approached them to see whether he could work there. The bishop’s letters didn’t indicate any attempt to find him alternate hospital employment either.
He said the problem was hiding, not work. It was put to him that the problem emanated from work and had been brewing for some time. He said he wasn’t expecting it to get so bad – he was used to being asked to convert but the real problem began with the incident he mentioned.

100. Asked how he found that [Dr C] had told the deceased patient’s brother that the applicant was to blame for the death, he claimed that one of the staff members told him. [Dr C] told all the theatre staff that the applicant was to blame for the patient’s death and the hospital was covering for the applicant. Asked how they would know [Dr C] called the deceased person’s brother, he said that [Dr C] told them this as well. [Dr C] denied saying this when the applicant confronted him about this.
101. It was put to him that [Dr C] would surely have been questioned as part of the hospital inquiry, he claimed that they asked the surgeon no questions as they only asked questions of the applicant, the ICU and the heart doctor. It was put to him that it was hard to believe that they would not ask the surgeon any questions, and he then said they may have asked him some routine questions. Asked to clarify whether they asked [Dr C] questions or not, he said that the focus was on the anaesthesia, not the bleeding or the like.

102. It was put to him that [Dr C] allegedly hated the applicant so during the inquiry he would surely have tried to blame the applicant and then spread rumours after the inquiry. He claimed that he had witnesses who said he did the right thing. It was put to him that if everyone said things were okay and the case was closed, so it was strange that when [Dr C] tried to tell the team that the applicant was to blame, or that the staff didn’t disbelieve him. Given they had all been part of the investigation, it was hard to see how he could spread rumours amongst the operating staff given they were there and part of the inquiry.
103. He claimed that [Dr C] was trying to convince the patient’s family that he was at fault. The staff knew he had done no wrong and had nothing to do with the family. The patient’s family were ignorant and uneducated but just followed their co-religionists. He was asked why he didn’t get the ICU or cardiac doctors of other Muslim staff members to speak to the family in person or via phone and tell them the truth. Or he could have got the staff to go via a sheikh and get him to speak to the family so that [Dr C] could be isolated regarding his views.
104. He claimed that he told the patient’s brother to come to the hospital and see for himself all the procedures and he would see that everything was done properly. Or he could file a complaint against the applicant and would see that it was okay. It didn’t occur to him to go to a sheikh. Asked what occurred after he was asked to pay the diya, he said that there was law in the country and he could take the applicant to court. The brother said they didn’t recognise the law in Egypt and that one Muslim man was equal to two Christian men or women. The man said he wanted 100 camels (3 million Egyptian pounds). The manager of the hospital said the case was closed and it had nothing to do with the hospital. This occurred around May 2018.
105. He told the brother that he could never get this amount of money and the brother said they would then apply the shari’ah and take and eye for an eye. This was two days after the first phone call. He was scared as was his wife and he stopped going to the hospital and got a new number. The brother then called him on the new number and laughed at him saying that getting a new number wasn’t sufficient. It was put to him that this guy was supposed to be an ignorant, uneducated person from the country. He said that he meant the person was narrow-minded, rather than ignorant. He could have got the number from the hospital.
106. Asked how he could have got the number from the hospital, the applicant said that he gave the number to the hospital only for emergencies but didn’t know how he got the number and may have known someone from the hospital. Asked how he would have known someone from the hospital, he said that even if he didn’t in Egypt people would happily pass on telephone numbers if asked. The applicant began yelling at the brother on the phone and said that if anyone touched his family he would come for them. The brother said they didn’t want his family, they only wanted the applicant.
107. His name was [Mr K]and he told him again he should check with the hospital that the procedure was correct. [Mr K] said [Dr C] told him everything and the hospital was covering up. Asked if he reported this to the police he said that he did but they refused to make a report. The applicant told him that the shari’ah was old and out of date and he shouldn’t use it. [Mr K] then told him that he had recorded what the applicant had said and he would take him to court for disrespecting religion. Asked if he had mentioned the recording previously in his statement or interview, he said that he had.
108. Asked again why the police didn’t make a report, he said they mocked him and said the person was just a religious fellow who believed in shari’ah and they couldn’t make a report unless he was physically harmed and that he should go to the doctor’s association and make a complaint there. He was so scared and he then stayed at a friend’s house in their town for a week and never went out. Someone came asking for him in their street. Asked why he didn’t hide in a bigger city like Cairo or Alexandria, he claimed that he went to another town for a week and then went to Alexandria for 20 days and didn’t go out while there. Asked why he left the country rather than go to Alexandria or Cairo, he claimed that it would be the same concerns. He didn’t even go to the church as he had to present his ID card before going into the church.
109. He was asked how he would be found by [Mr K] in a country of 90 million people and he said that the police would find him if the complaint about contempt of religion was submitted by [Mr K]. He claimed that [Mr K] had threatened to have him charged with contempt of religion. Subsequently a summons came for him after he left. It was put to him that the Tribunal was aware that such charges had been made in Egypt, but there were also advocacy groups that highlighted such instances where these charges were laid. The Tribunal was unaware of any such advocacy being made for an issue of the type he described and was asked why nobody was advocating publicly for him, nor had his case ever been mentioned let alone highlighted. This may raise questions in the Tribunal’s mind that this was because no such charge existed.
110. He claimed that this was because he hadn’t been arrested. It was put to him that he had been charged, the case had been heard and the only reason he wasn’t arrested was because he was overseas and yet there was no advocacy. He had provided a range of evidence to the Tribunal that could have been provided to the church or any advocacy group to highlight his case. If ot happened to a doctor in Egypt it could happen to anyone so the lack of publicity or advocacy raised questions as to the truthfulness of the claim.
111. The applicant claimed that the issue in his case was not whether someone died as this was easy. The problem was contempt of Islam and [Mr K] said the applicant spoke badly about religion and criticised shari’ah. As far as advocacy, the church didn’t want to interfere and advocacy groups would do it separately. He was asked why his family didn’t approach the advocacy groups to help, or why the advocacy groups didn’t advertise and make an issue about his court case.
112. He claimed that at that time no one knew about it and they didn’t want to talk about it in case it caused more trouble. Even the pope himself would not criticise their situation even when churches were burning down. If someone was killed he would say nothing – the church would not get involved. When the US Congress came to investigate the Pope said they were 100 per cent without problems. It was put to him that he could have put forward his case anonymously so there were no repercussions in the event his name was mentioned. The Tribunal put to him that it was unaware of any case regarding contempt of religion amongst advocacy groups and he had not provided any court documents – he was asked how the Tribunal could determine if he was telling the truth.
113. He claimed that the advocacy groups approach the victims not the other way around. This comes after the case has been heavily publicised. He was asked about the attempt to negotiate a financial resolution, and he said that the lawyers tried unsuccessfully to do it. In January 2019 four men with beards and jilbabs came to his apartment. Asked if this was reported this to the police, he said that it wasn’t. The lawyer advised them not to go to the police as it would make matters worse. It was put to him that he had been threatened with death and was asked how much worse it could be.
114. He claimed that even if he did this he didn’t know who they were so what could he say and they would seek revenge if he did this. It was put to him that the Tribunal had no copies of the original documents that he had provided translations of. He provided some to the Tribunal which noted they were handwritten.
115. It was put to him that one said there was a complaint against the applicant and it didn’t say contempt of religion. It was put to him that diya was not recognised in Egypt for criminal matters.[1] He agreed that it was not officially recognised but it occurred informally. It was put to him that he had given a document to the Tribunal that he claimed was from the Complaints and Misdemeanours Department that said he hadn’t paid the diya – yet he had also agreed that this was not formally recognised by the government. Therefore it couldn’t be the basis for an official government complaint. It made the Tribunal wonder.
[1] See for example Blood money payments threaten justice for revolution deaths - Egypt Independent, accessed 28 November 2022.
116. He agreed it was not acknowledged but it was enforced according to customs and there were many examples such as disputes between Christians and Muslims. The Tribunal said it understood but it wouldn’t be put on an official document. He said that it was just a complaint and not an official document – he just gave this complaint to the police. It was put to him that the Tribunal had no idea because it wasn’t given the original document. A court case had come out of this complaint document so the Tribunal found it hard to understand how the issue was not now in the public space and therefore known about or taken up by advocates.
117. It was put to him that there were public reports about Christians criticising Islam and these were highlighted by advocacy groups. This gave the Tribunal something to go on, yet his case had been out in the public space for three and a half years, his brother was allegedly attacked and his family in hiding and he was charged with contempt of religion yet there was no corroboration for this claim. This raised concerns in the Tribunal’s mind that the claim was not true.
118. He stated that the problem only became public if the victim was jailed or tortured, so he asked why he would have mentioned the issue. It was put to him that he claimed the family had been threatened with death, his brother allegedly assaulted by bearded men and he was allegedly unfairly charged with contempt of religion so there appeared to be every reason to highlight his circumstances to stop these things happening/being repeated.
119. He said it wasn’t practical to go public – why would they publicise his name and that he went to Australia. Or there was no benefit to going to police as he couldn’t guarantee he would be released. It was put to him that after his previous interview he said that he opened a private practice in March 2013 and a bearded person came in and he had to close the practice. His car was destroyed and he was threatened with death. Asked if he ever mentioned this in his interview or his statements, he said that he didn’t. Asked if he mentioned his private practice in his list of employment in his protection visa application, he said that he mentioned this as further evidence about what had been happening to him.
120. Asked again if he listed this employment previously, he said that he hadn’t. Asked why, he claimed that it wasn’t the issue he was talking about and he only mentioned this because he wanted to tell them that it occurred previously and got no protection. It was put to him that if he was claiming to have suffered persecution as a Christian and failed to mentioned being threatened and his car being destroyed this would raise questions in the Tribunal’s mind as to whether such events ever occurred. By any measure this was a serious incident that he failed to mention until after he had been refused a visa – perhaps he was making this up to give more weight to his claim.
121. He claimed that he had a certificate about the closure of the clinic. It was put to him that this simply supported his claim that the clinic had been closed. There were many reasons why he would have closed his clinic. Country information was put to him that generally speaking, particularly in bigger urban areas, Christian/Muslim co-existence is quite good with some exceptions and since Sisi took pver the presidency the police had been attentive to issues. Exceptions tended to be in remote rural Egypt. Therefore his claims regarding the police, bearded men and 90 per cent of doctors being anti-Christian seemed to be contrary to country information.
122. He claimed that the Tribunal may doubt his story but he was a successful doctor and he came to Australia and couldn’t start again. This should show his desperation to leave. His father wanted to return to Egypt but he told his father to wait. Asked why his father was part of the protection claim if he wasn’t in danger, the applicant said that he was looking after all his needs. It was put to him that this made sense from the perspective of being a dutiful son but not in terms of needing protection in Egypt. He said his father wasn’t seeking protection but his lawyer said he should be included
123. At this point the witness was brought in and was asked what she wanted to say. She said that she had witnessed what had happened to her brother – she later said that she was aware of it rather than witnessed it. It was very difficult for him. It was put to her that there were advocacy groups that highlighted instances of things such as contempt of religion and her brother would have had such profile so it would have been newsworthy, she said that others were vocal but many were not highlighted. It was put to her that if they weren’t publicised it would not be possible for her to know that there were many such cases. She was asked why they didn’t publicise her brother’s case so the court case would have been known about and perhaps forestalled. She said that she didn’t know but perhaps this was the advice he received.
124. He claimed that the country information used by the Tribunal did not reflect the true situation in Egypt. The extremist groups just want power but the authorities don’t want this and there is an agreement that the Islamist groups get a free hand to persecute Christians and burn churches and they won’t be held accountable. There is also pressure on the church and they therefore don’t say what really happens to them so they don’t upset the Egyptian government. It was pout to him that the Australian government has had diplomatic representation in Egypt for more than 70 years and didn’t rely simply on single sources of information. It was also acknowledged that in a country of 90 million people things may not be uniformly the case.
125. The Coptic population was about ten per cent of Egypt’s population so the Tribunal had to determine what was the norm and not just random events that happened to a few people and therefore not systematised. It may also be that incidents were geographically limited and a person could move to another part of Egypt to avoid harm. He was given time to provide original documents of those that he had had translated.
CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence
126. The applicants arrived in Australia on visitor’s visas [in] July 2018 and applied for protection on 6 August 2018. I have sighted copies of their passports and accept that Egypt is the applicants’ country of nationality.
127. The first-named applicant is a [Age] year-old married male whose wife and children remain in Egypt. The second-named applicant is his [Age] year-old father. He did not attend the hearing and has no claims for protection separate to that of his son. As a consequence I will simply refer to the first-named applicant as ‘the applicant’ in the body of this finding. The applicant claims he feared being jailed or killed by Islamic extremists if he returned to Egypt because he had been accused of contempt of religion and of cursing the shari’ah.
128. In considering an applicant’s account, undue weight should not be placed on some degree of confusion or omission to conclude that a person is not telling the truth. Nor can significant inconsistencies or embellishments be lightly dismissed. The Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant.
129. I found the applicant’s evidence regarding his claims to lack credibility. For reasons set out below I did not find the applicant to be a reliable, credible or truthful witness, and that he fabricated his claims in order to be granted a protection visa.
Conflict at Hospital and Contempt of Religion Charge
130. I do not accept that the applicant had a conflict with a bigoted Islamist by the name of [Dr C], who told a deceased patient’s family that the applicant was responsible for the patient’s death and the family had subsequently threatened the applicant when he would not pay them ‘blood money’, and had subsequently (and secretly) recorded the applicant criticising Islamic law during a telephone conversation and that this has led to the applicant being charged with contempt of religion.
131. To begin with, the degree of unrestrained enmity exhibited by [Dr C] towards the applicant simply based on the latter’s religious identity appears implausible based on the account given, and inconsistent with available country information. President Morsi’s Islamist government was overthrown by the military in July 2013 and President Sisi has subsequently ‘repeatedly denounced attempts to create rifts among Egyptians’. Country information indicates that most Egyptians ‘…work, live and socialise together with little regard to each other’s religious identity.’[2]
[2] DFAT Country Information Report – Egypt, 17 June 2019 pp 18-19.
132. Given this the fact that, even if the hospital had many Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and fanatical Salafist doctors during the Morsi government rule, that they would have remained following the fall of his government or that they would have publicly maintained their anti-Christian diatribes even after the overthrow, appears implausible. And the fact that [Dr C] could have maintained such an over-the-top anti-Christian attitude and referred to the government as an infidel government and that the country was itself infidel because it was under a Constitution without suffering some consequences, lacks credibility.
133. The Sisi government has targeted Islamists, particularly armed groups and politically active MB members so it is sensitive to those espousing such views. It has also used emergency powers against critics of the government.[3] The fact that [Dr C] could combine both Islamist and anti-government views while working in the hospital and not suffer any administrative, let alone legal consequences in the Sisi era therefore lacks credibility. I do not accept that the hospital administration failed to act on the applicant’s complaint regarding one of [Dr C]’s outburst, given the attitude of the government towards people airing such views that I have noted above.
[3] Ibid p 12.
134. The Tribunal’s concerns regarding the truthfulness of this claim are also heightened by the applicant’s lack of attempts to find, or even knowledge of, Christian hospitals that he could seek employment at to remove his alleged concerns about the religious bigotry of other doctors he worked with. Despite claiming that 80 per cent of the doctors he worked with shared [Dr C]’s views, he never sought alternative employment at a Christian-run hospital either by himself or using the intercession of Coptic religious authorities.
135. Not only did he not attempt this, he didn’t even know if there were Coptic hospitals in large cities such as Cairo or Alexandria (there was also a Christian hospital in Tanta) which doesn’t indicate any attempt to seek alternatives to his allegedly intolerable employment conditions. I do not accept that it was too hard given his family circumstances because he would have to drive there on a daily basis. Whether he drove there or sought accommodation by himself or through the church would have been options open to him, but the fact that he never explored them supports the Tribunal’s view that it was because there was no need as his claim regarding [Dr C] was fabricated. Nor do I accept that it was difficult to work there because of his age – given he never approached them directly or through the church I can’t give any weight to such a claim.

136. Because I do not accept that there was a conflict with [Dr C], it follows that [Dr C] never contacted the brother of a patient who died in surgery and told him that the applicant was responsible for the patient’s death. There are a number of other reasons that also make me disbelieve such a claim.
137. The applicant was vague regarding whether [Dr C] was questioned as part of the inquiry into the patient’s death. He initially said that he wasn’t questioned but when it was put to him that the Tribunal found it strange that the surgeon wouldn’t be questioned about a heart attack leading to death suffered by a patient he was operating on, the applicant then said that they may have asked him some routine questions but the focus wasn’t on the surgeon.
138. The Tribunal also finds it strange that no action was taken by the hospital against [Dr C] after he approached theatre staff telling them that the hospital was covering for the applicant, and that [Dr C] had told the deceased’s brother about this. Given the theatre staff allegedly supported the applicant’s actions in surgery it lacks credibility that [Dr C]’s views weren’t relayed to the hospital administration by either the applicant or the theatre staff given [Dr C] was publicly accusing the hospital of lying over the death of a patient. The administration was also aware of [Dr C]’s strong anti-Christian and anti-government views, so it again lacks credibility that they would take no action against a doctor who was essentially publicly questioning their integrity and sowing discord amongst hospital staff.
139. I also do not accept the applicant’s claim made in a separate submission that the hospital refused to assist the applicant in his legal issues because the people involved were fanatical Salafists with good relationships with the authorities. The Tribunal has already noted the attitude of the Sisi government with respect to Islamists, therefore the assertion that fanatical Salafists had a good relationship with the authorities is inconsistent with the available country information.
140. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant had been charged with contempt of religion following a complaint filed by the deceased patient’s brother. I acknowledge that such a law exists and that it has been applied in the past. There are several instances in which Copts have been charged for this crime[4] and they have been reported on and documented by Egyptian human rights group(s). There is no such evidence that would support the applicant’s claim provided by the applicant nor available to the Tribunal.
[4] See for example Egypt: Coptic Christian imprisoned for 5 years for 'blasphemy' - World Watch Monitor, Egypt sentences 4 Coptic teenagers for contempt of Islam | AP News
141. It strikes the Tribunal as strange that no media or human rights groups have made mention of such a case which, on the face of it, would be newsworthy. Nor has there been any public advocacy by church groups or the like in support of the applicant after he had allegedly been charged with such a crime, nor after the case had been heard at court. I do not accept that they didn’t want to mention the situation in case it caused more trouble. Given the applicant claimed that his family had been threatened with death, his brother attacked and his family forced to hide, it was hard to imagine how much worse his situation had to be before he publicly mentioned the case.
142. Nor do I accept that advocacy groups publicise issues only after approaching the victim, not the other way around, so the issue had to be first publicised. This makes little sense as the applicant or his family could have approached such groups directly or indirectly at any stage if they wished.
143. I have taken into account a range of documents that the applicant has provided that he claims support his claims, however I lend them little weight. Without going into the details of every one of them, they include what purport to be summonses, police or medical reports, a lawyer’s letter and a letter from the Coptic diocese of [City 4]. They variously lack any security features, in some cases are handwritten or handwritten entries on a form or computer generated. The forms could have been produced on any home computer, or written by anybody. The letter from the Coptic diocese also recommends that the applicant be helped to reside in Australia with his [siblings].
144. Even though one of the documents noted that the applicant was required in court [in] December 2018 to have his charge regarding contempt of religion heard, the applicant claimed that he hadn’t asked whether the case had been concluded and what the result was. This strikes the Tribunal as rather unusual that he would have no interest in the court outcome – I do not accept that his family just told him to forget about it or did not tell him because of their concern for his mental health. The applicant was told that it would be reasonable to believe that he could provide a copy of the verdict, however none was ever provided.
145. Because I do not accept the claim of the patient’s death and subsequent perfidy by [Dr C] that led to the patient’s brother threatening the applicant and a charge of contempt of religion, it follows that I do not accept that the deceased’s brother made threatening phone calls to the applicant, that the applicant had to hide in a relative’s flat, that two bishops advised him to flee, a person came to their neighbours and nearby stores asking the applicant’s whereabouts, people came looking for him at his relative’s flat, that he then moved elsewhere, that his children have been followed on their way out of the house or that his family had to change residence, that police have come looking for him, that his brother was attacked by bearded Salafists looking for the applicant in January 2019, that his wife received a threatening call in June 2020 during which it was revealed that a moped accident she was involved in in October 2019 had been a deliberate hit and run (both made in a separate claim). I have already noted the little weight that could be afforded the medical reports tendered in support of these latter two claims. I also note that in the case of the applicant’s wife, there is no mention of the cause of her injury in any of the medical reports.
146. I took into account the applicant’s sister’s witness testimony however lend it little weight. Nothing that she provided in terms of support for her brother’s claims was based on first-hand knowledge of an event.
Other Issues
147. I do not accept that he was told by a bearded person to close his private practice he had opened in March 2013 and that he was threatened with death and had his car destroyed. This relies entirely on his oral evidence which I have found lacks credibility. He never mentioned this in his interview or statements, nor did he list his private practice in his employment list in his visa application. I do not accept that he failed to do so because it wasn’t the main issue he was talking about. The Tribunal is of the opinion that it was reasonable to believe that if such incidents had occurred they would have been mentioned much earlier given their seriousness. I lend little weight to the notice of the closure of the clinic – even if I were to accept it as genuine, it simply means that the practice was closed for any number of reasons.
148. I also do not accept that the police failed to put in a report regarding a car accident he had when he was hit from behind, that Muslim doctors stopped employing him as an anaesthetist because he was a Christian and there was a fatwa issued to this effect, that doctors in [Country 1] tried to isolate him, refused him leave on the same basis. Again, this relies solely on his oral evidence which I have found lacks credibility.
149. Finally, whilst I accept that the applicant is a Coptic Christian, I am satisfied that he will not undertake any public criticism of Islam or Islamic law. I have already noted that I have not accepted the truthfulness of the various claims that he has made regarding he or his family being targeted by Islamists or other Muslims. I also note that he stated in his application that Christianity teaches him to be love and respect people of other religions, which further strengthens my belief that he would simply follow his own faith on return to Egypt and not seek to impose it on others or criticise Islam.
150. As the applicant hasn’t raised any other claims to fear persecution, and having regard to all the evidence and his claims both singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for any s 5(J) reason either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary Protection
151. Because I do not accept that the applicant was ever mistreated by a bigoted Islamist doctor, falsely accused of causing the death of a patient and threatened by the patient’s family, charged with contempt of religion, he or any family members had to hide, were followed, threatened or had people or police looking for them, were beaten by bearded men or run over by a moped, that the applicant had his car destroyed and his practice shut down due to threats, that he was denied work or leave because of his faith, I am not satisfied that there are any substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.
152. As a consequence, I also do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Egypt, that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on the basis of these claims as set out n the complementary protection criterion set out in s. 36(2)(aa).
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION

154. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Rodger Shanahan
Member

Attachment - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2022] AATA 5182

28 November 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction