1929913 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 4160

1929913 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 4160 (6 September 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:1929913

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Egypt
MEMBER:Ann Duffield
DATE:6 September 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Canberra
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
Statement made on 06 September 2023 at 1:12pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Egypt – Federal Court remittal – religion – Coptic Christian – converting a Muslim to Christianity – particular social group – women – returned asylum seekers – rape – kidnapping attempt – physical assault – disputed custody of child – surveillance by Egyptian authorities – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Sarrazola v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 101

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 Immigration and Border Protection 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 10 October 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas on 28 May 2015.
The matter has been returned to the Tribunal by an order of the Federal Court because the Court found the previously constituted Tribunal made findings in relation to the applicant’s credibility to be legally unreasonable.
The primary applicant and two of the secondary applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 18 April 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from one of the primary applicant’s daughters. 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 and their representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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, the applicant 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
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.
The issue in this case is whether the applicants are persons to whom Australia owes protection obligations. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Background
The applicant is a citizen of Egypt born in [year]. The other three applicants are her children born in [specified years].They are Christian. The applicant says that they still own a house in Cairo and it is not currently being rented.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicants are not who they claim to be and are not citizens of Egypt. There is no evidence that they have the rights of residency to any other third country. For the purposes of this assessment therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that Egypt is their receiving country.
Th applicant is the only person making protection claims. The other three applicants are relying on the claims of the primary applicant. The applicant’s husband remains in Egypt although he has made two visitor visa applications to come to Australia: the first in October 2014 and the second in April 2022. He also applied for a visitor visa to [Country 1] in May 2021. All these applications were refused.
The applicant and her children arrived in Australia on tourist visas [in] August 2014. Their visas were granted on 30 June and 2 July 2014. The applicant has a sister in Australia and the applicants stayed with her upon arrival. Prior to travelling to Australia, the applicant and her family lived in a suburb of Cairo. The applicant and her husband still own that property in Cairo.
The applicant’s passport is valid until 2027.
The applicants lodged the applications subject to this review on 10 October 2014 and the primary applicant’s third daughter, [Daughter A], was added as an applicant after her birth on [date].
The application was refused by the delegate of the Minister on 28 May 2015 and heard by a differently constituted Tribunal on 16 and 31 March 2017. That Tribunal affirmed the decision on 15 May 2017. The applicants appealed that decision in June 2017, and it was remitted back to the Tribunal [in] September 2019.
[In] August 2020 the applicants wrote to the Minister for Immigration seeking his intervention to grant them the visa. This request was made on the basis of advice received by the applicant by the Federal Court [in] May 2020, that her name and her claims for protection may have been accessed by members of the public because of a data breach.
Applicant’s protection claims
The applicant claims that her husband’s life has been threatened and he has been on the run from the family of a young woman, [Ms A], whom he assisted in converting from Islam to Christianity. She claims that her husband helped this woman escape to [Country 2] in February 2014 as her family were trying to force her to marry a Muslim man.
The applicant claims that because of her husband’s actions, men associated with or related to the woman’s family broke into her home in Cairo, and raped and tried to kidnap her in June 2014.
The applicant claims that her daughters were the subject of a kidnapping attempt whilst out shopping with their grandmother several days after she was raped.
In July 2014 she found out that she was pregnant and claims that the men who raped her were trying to find out from the laboratory whether she was pregnant. She claims that one of her attackers, [Mr B], is claiming to be the father of her daughter (who was subsequently born in Australia) and that if she has to return to Egypt, [Mr B] and his family will kidnap her (the applicant’s daughter) and claim her as their family. She claims that [Mr B] fabricated a marriage certificate showing that she and he are married and that if she returns to Egypt, he will find her and harm her.
The applicant claims that there were numerous other break-ins to the family home in Cairo for the same reason, which forced them to move to another location until they could travel to Australia in August 2014.
The applicant states that although these incidents happened in 2014, she and her daughters would still face persecution if they returned to Egypt.
Since they departed the applicant’s husband was attacked, resulting in him going to the hospital for treatment and reporting it to the police. He has provided a hospital record and police report for this incident. The applicant’s husband also claims that [Mr B] has attacked him in his home with two other men. They tied him up and set fire to the apartment in April 2016. In his statement to police about the incident, the applicant’s husband stated that [Mr B] is the father of the woman he helped to convert to Christianity. (It is also the man that the applicant alleges raped her, married her and claims is the father of her daughter, but this is not mentioned in the statement made to the police by her husband).
The applicant’s claims of persecution are related to her gender, her religion as a Christian woman, and being the member of the family unit of her husband who has been accused of converting a Muslim woman to Christianity.
Claims relating to alleged breach of privacy
[In] May 2020 the Federal Court advised the applicants that their names may have been accessed publicly during a breach of the Federal Court database. They were notified that they could apply for Ministerial Intervention in certain circumstances.
The applicant, her daughters and her husband provided statutory declarations and statements describing a large number of unexplained calls and two break-ins on their property (garage and car) that they considered to be highly suspicious and threatening. They claim that these calls and the contemporaneous break-ins at their home and their car were the result of the Federal Court data breach and that Egyptian authorities had located them and were threatening them. There was a great deal of time spent in the hearing discussing these claims. The Tribunal suggested to them that these calls may have been spam or robo-calls which were very common, and the break-ins may have been unfortunate co-incidences. The Tribunal reminded them that the Federal Court had not confirmed that their names and data had been breached and made available to the public.
It transpired towards the end of the hearing that the Federal Court, when contacted by the applicant’s representative during the hearing, confirmed that the applicant’s name and case were not involved in the data breach and had not been released publicly. The Tribunal informed the applicant and she said she found it difficult to accept that the timing of the data breach and the unexplained events were not related.
The Tribunal told the applicant that she should take comfort from the fact that her details were not released, and whatever the explanation for the events that she outlined, it was not because her details and the details of her protection claims were released as a result of a breach of the data base of the Federal Court.
The Tribunal sought from the applicant any written confirmation it receives from the Federal Court in relation to the verbal advice provided to the Tribunal that their data had not been compromised. The Tribunal received no such confirmation, but it has no reason to question the verbal advice received from the Federal Court as conveyed at the hearing by the applicant’s representative, and the applicant has not provided any submission to the Tribunal to lead it to question that oral advice.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s information and details of her protection application and claims have not been compromised and have not been made available publicly to the Egyptian Government or to anyone else.
Certificate issued under s 438 dated May 2015
The certificate relates to adverse information provided to the Department in 2015 by someone in the community. The Tribunal did not put this certificate to the applicant as it had already been put to her by a differently constituted Tribunal without comment by the applicant. The information was not given any weight either by the Department, or the previous Tribunal and it has had no bearing on this Tribunal’s considerations.
Information before the Tribunal
The Tribunal has before it the department’s file which includes the original application and evidence, a copy of the Tribunal decision dated 15 May 2017 (differently constituted), and further information and documentation including, but not limited to, the following provided by the applicant:
a.Translated copy of the applicant’s original statement made in relation to her protection application, dated October 2014 (folio 065 of the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal).
b.Translated copy of a medical report dated [in] March 2016, stating that the applicant’s husband had bruises and abrasion on his right hand, superficial wounds on his face and swelling of the skull as a result of being hit by a solid object (folio 115 of the applicant’s submission).
c.Copy of a translation of an “investigation report” dated [in] April 2016 in relation to a statement to the police by the applicant’s husband about a fire and assault against at his apartment. (Folio 121,122 and 123 of the applicant’s submission).
d.Copy of translation of a “Minutes of Detectives Investigation”, undated, stating that the “secret investigations” regarding the fire at the apartment of the applicant’s husband were concluded on [a day in] April 2016 and truly occurred (Folio 129 of the applicant’s submission)
e.Copy of a translation of a “certificate” (undated) stating that the complaint made by the applicant’s husband in relation to the attempted murder and burning of the apartment has been dismissed [in] April 2016. The certificate was issued at the request of the applicant’s husband. (Folio 125 of the applicant’s submission).
f.Copy of a translated “Investigation Report” from [Police Station 1], dated [in] May 2016, stating that an investigation was opened on [a day in] April 2016 in relation to an alleged assault and kidnapping of the applicant’s husband who states that four persons, including [Mr B], kidnapped him and tried to kill him. (Folio 130 of the applicant’s submission).
g.Translated copy of a letter from the applicant to the [Official 1] requesting that his cases in relation to the assault on [a day in] March, fire and murder attempt of [a day in] April and kidnapping attempt [later in] April 2016 be re-opened (they had been dismissed), dated [in] May 2016. (Folio 136 of the applicant’s submission). (Noting that the report of the kidnapping was not made until [a day in] May 2016).
h.Copy of a translated “certificate” dated [in] June 2016 stating that the complaint of the applicant’s husband lodged [in] May 2016 was dismissed [later in] May 2016. (Folio 139 of the applicant’s submission).
i.Copy of a translated “certificate” dismissing the complaint of the applicant’s husband in relation to the attempted kidnapping and attempted murder on [a day in] May 2016 (folio 133 of the applicant’s submission).
j.Copy of a translated “certificate” from the [Official 2] of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo dated [in] July 2016 stating that the applicant’s husband has been subjected to persecution and many types of threats to his life from Islamic fundamentalists and some Islamic groups due to his service and religious beliefs and which nearly led to his death”. Folio 145 of the applicant’s submission.
k.A copy of a translated, undated, statement from the applicant’s mother relating to the attempted kidnapping of the applicant’s daughters in June 2014. (Folio 082 and 083 of the applicant’s submission).
l.Copy of a translation of a statement by the applicant’s husband (undated) restating the assaults of March and April 2016) (Folios 142 and143 of the applicant’s submission)
m.A copy of a translation of an undated letter from the solicitors of the applicant’s husband in relation to his claims of assault during 2016 and their disappointment that the complaints were dismissed (Folio 113 of the applicant’s submission).
n.Translated copies of three applications for leave without pay from the applicant’s husband to [Agency 1] in Cairo in 2017, 2018 and 2019 (folios 148, 150 and 152 of the applicant’s submission).
o.Translated copy of a decision from [Court 1] of Cairo handed down [in] February 2019 in relation to “court case [number], year 2017”. This judgement gives custody of the applicant’s daughter to her paternal grandmother (vis the mother of [Mr B]). (Folios 176 -179 of the applicant’s submission)
p.A copy of the Australian Federal Circuit Court decision in relation to the review of the previous Tribunal’s decision affirming the Department’s decision, dated [in] September 2019.
q.Statutory declarations from the applicant’s daughters dated 18 June 2020 and 17 June 2020 (folios 159 and 168 of the applicant’s submission).
r.Statutory declaration of the applicant dated 27 August 2020 detailing some unsolicited and suspicious phone calls she received which she attributes to the data leak of the Federal Court (Folio 073 and 074 of the applicant’s submission).
s.Copy of a letter to the Minister, from the applicant, dated [in] August 2020 seeking Ministerial intervention.
t.Copies of communications between the Australian Embassy in Cairo and the applicant’s husband and his application for an Australian visa dated November 2020. (Folios 093, 094 and 095 of the applicant’s submission).
u.Declaration from the applicant’s husband stating that he received a suspicious call inquiring about the applicant [in] June 2020, which he attributes to the data leak of the Federal Court.
v.Statutory declaration dated August 2020 in relation to the applicant’s fears about her phone being hacked.
w.A copy of receipt by [Agency 2] regarding her report about the phone hacking incidents and email scams she has received since the beginning of June 2020.
x.A submission from her adviser dated May 2020 detailing the alleged hacking and break-in incidents, a statement from the applicant’s mother stating that she also received a call asking for the applicant, and further Country Information in relation to Coptic Christians in Egypt.
y.Undated declaration by the applicant’s husband stating that he has been living at [Location 1] since June 2021, and detailing his attempts to get a visa to travel to Australia and [Country 1]. (Folio 088 of the applicant’s submission).
z.Undated statement from the applicant’s husband stating that he has been subject to some strange calls as a result of information leaked by [Court 1] (Folio 146 of the applicant’s submission).
aa.Copy of a translated Statement (undated) from the applicant’s husband stating that the events since 2014 adversely impact his safety and security and that he still does not have a permanent residence but lives at the [Location 1] since June 2021.
bb.Copy of a letter dated 23 February 2023 from [a named college] in support of the request of the applicant’s daughter to defer her exams as a result of stress associated with the protection application and review. (Folio 166 of the applicant’s submission)
cc.[Manager A] dated 27 February 2023 stating that the applicant’s husband is residing with them at [Location 1] as he is in danger because of his religion. It states that people are tracking the applicant’s husband to inflict harm on him. He has been living at the [location] since 19 June 2021. (Folio 154 of the applicant’s submission).
dd.A statement dated 18 February 2023 from the applicant’s brother stating that he has concerns about his parents’ safety in Egypt and that he has applied for them to reunite with him in [Country 3]. He also states that it remains unsafe for the applicant to return to Egypt and that she should not return (Folio 056 of the applicant’s submission).
ee.Statutory declarations from the applicant’s daughter and friend, dated April 2023 in relation to an incident encountered by the applicant’s daughter when she collected her new Egyptian passport from the Egyptian embassy in August 2021 (Folio 160 and 162 of the applicant’s submission).
ff.A statement from the applicant’s brother dated 2 April 2023 in relation to the alleged break-in of the garage, assisting the applicant’s husband about a sponsored visa to Australia and “some safety struggles” experienced by the applicant’s parents in Cairo (Folio 156 of the applicant’s submission).
gg.A submission dated 11 April 2023 from the applicant through her adviser, setting out her claims and arguments.
hh.Al Jazeera article dated April 2022 Palm Sunday church attacks: Egypt’s worst day of violence.
ii.A number of reports on Egypt including from Human Rights watch and a 2019 report on International Religious Freedom Egypt by the US Embassy in Egypt.
jj.Some public source articles about attacks on Copts in Egypt in 2019 and 2022.
kk.Copy of the differently constituted Tribunal’s Decision Record, dated May 2017 (folios 029-045 of the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal).
ll.Translated copy of the applicant’s admission to the [named] Hospital on [a day in] June 2014 in relation to her haemorrhoid surgery.
mm.Statement dated 29 April 2023 from the applicant’s sister, confirming that she obtained the certificate from the hospital.
The Tribunal hearing

Over the course of a four-hour hearing the Tribunal took evidence from the applicant and one of her daughters. The applicant’s representative also assisted.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if she could provide the original documents of which the Tribunal had copies, including police reports, letters, medical records and so on. The Tribunal informed her that given the nature of the documents it was important that they were verified as authentic. The applicant and her adviser told the Tribunal that this might not be possible as the applicant’s husband was on the run and may not be able to access the documents in question. The Tribunal subsequently informed the applicant that it would consider the copies that she had provided and not require original documents be provided.
The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it was important that it be able to speak to her husband and noted that he was not on the list of witnesses. She claimed that her husband was not able to move around freely or be able to use the phone. She told the Tribunal that she had informed him about the hearing, but he was not able to leave the [location] where he was staying to get a signal because he didn’t have a car. The Tribunal sought further information and the applicant said that she didn’t know anything.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to provide as much detail as she could, as perfunctory remarks did not give it confidence that she was giving a truthful account. She was unable to provide the Tribunal any detail about where her husband was living and what his accommodation arrangements were. She said that her husband’s nature was that he did not speak much and was much more wary after the data breach. She said that he had received threatening calls over his mobile and people kept getting his number no matter how many times he changed it and were threatening to kill him and asking about where the applicant and the children were.
The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband was [an occupation 1] and [in a specified role] at a [an agency] in Cairo for many years. She did not know how long. She said that he worked a normal [work] day and sometimes after [work] he [helped clients privately]. He regularly departed Cairo on a Thursday evening and returned on Sunday. She said that he went to [Christian centre 1]. She was unable to provide the Tribunal with any details about what he did there or where he stayed. She said that he didn’t talk to her about his activities and did not know when he got involved with converting Muslims to Christians but said he told her it was his belief. She said that he told her that he helped them with food and jobs. The Tribunal asked her why he would be persecuted for providing converts with basic assistance, and she said that she didn’t know but that the family of one girl that he helped was persecuting him.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that conversions from Islam to Christianity were not likely to be performed by volunteers such as her husband and she said that he didn’t do the conversions, he just helped people with jobs and food and medication. She said that he would also explain to them the Bible. Asked where he helped with the conversions, she said he did this at [Christian centre 1]. The Tribunal confirmed with the applicant that her husband was not an ordained member of the church, just a volunteer. The applicant said that her husband became involved in helping convert people because it was his belief.
The applicant said that she and her husband had now been separated for eight years. Asked if she still believed that they were in a married relationship given that he did not give her any information about where he was and what he was doing, the applicant said that she believed that they were still married. He applied for a visitor visa to come to Australia on two separate occasions in October 2014 and April 2022. Both applications were rejected.
There was a discussion with the applicant about the sexual assault she alleges occurred as a result of her husband’s activities in converting Muslims to Christians. The applicant told the Tribunal that she did not report the sexual assault or inform anyone in her family until sometime afterwards when she told her sister. Her mother and father still do not know but she said that her daughters now knew. She said it was culturally very difficult to report these matters or discuss them with anyone. She said it was not safe to report it to the police because it related to her husband’s activities with the church and the conversions. She did not talk to anyone in the church about what happened.
The applicant retold her account of why she and her husband believe that they are being monitored by Egyptian authorities and people associated with the family of the girl that her husband assisted. She said that the man that assaulted her could not have known she was pregnant unless he was monitoring her or had access to her medical records. She said that the family of one of the men that raped her is claiming the child as his own and she will be prevented from leaving Egypt with her daughter. She stated that because of this her daughter would be in grave danger if she returned to Egypt. She said that these people considered her youngest daughter to be a member of their family as there was also a fake marriage to one of her assailants registered. The Tribunal put to her that it could not see how the family of [Ms A] would be able to monitor her activities and know about her pregnancy. They were not members of the government or security agencies. She told the Tribunal that it had to believe her.
The applicant said that she was in contact with her husband once a month or so through [messaging] platforms. He has the same email address, but his phone numbers change frequently. The Tribunal and the applicant had a conversation about her husband’s [work] schedule and how he also used to [help clients] in their homes. The Tribunal asked the applicant when her husband helped with the conversions, and she said that it was usually on Thursday when he went down to [Christian centre 1]. She did not really know where he stayed or what he did. She said that sometimes he saw his family (cousins) or had a conference, but she did not go down there with him.
The applicant said that her youngest daughter was the daughter of her husband as she was several weeks pregnant before the alleged rape in June.
The applicant told the Tribunal that her parents in Egypt did not feel safe and her brother was trying to get them to go and live with him in [Country 3]. Asked why they did not feel safe the applicant said that she didn’t know. They had applied for residency in [Country 3] but as of the time of the hearing, there had not been an outcome of the application for residency in [Country 3].
The applicants’ visas were granted on June 30 and July 2. The primary applicant explained that she could not travel until later because she was unwell. She went to the doctor around [the day in] June and was hospitalised on [a day in] July 2014. She remained in hospital for three days and [later in] July 2014 she was finally able to travel to Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether or not she considered that she and her husband were still married given their lack of communication and the fact that she knows so little about his activities. She was unable to tell the Tribunal whether he was still involved in converting Muslims to Christians. She thought that it would be unlikely. The Tribunal put to her then that he did not fear harm from Muslims generally or anyone other than the family of [Ms A]. The applicant said that she believed that the whole community would know.
She believes that the Egyptian government accessed her data from the Federal Court and sent Egyptian intelligence to their house. Asked why they would be interested in her she said that it was because she applied for a protection visa. She claimed that they would harm her because she is a Christian woman who has accused a Muslim man of harming her and her family, and also because her husband went to the police station more than once and they wouldn’t help him.
The applicant told the Tribunal that she does not know what happened to the house they own in Cairo or what happened to their belongings. She does not really know where her husband was or what he did between the time they left in 2014 and June 2021 when he went to [Location 1]. She knows that he moved from place to place to places provided by friends and perhaps the church, but she was unclear about the details.
The Tribunal watched and the interpreter translated two short videos of approximately 3 minutes each provided by the applicant’s husband to the Tribunal at the beginning of April 2023.
These video clips did not provide any additional relevant information regarding his activities or his claims. He confirmed his name and date of birth and showed his passport. He also confirmed his marriage to the applicant, the names and dates of birth of the applicant and his children. He stated that he was [an occupation 1] but was now retired. He says that his wife and children travelled to Australia [in] August 2014. He states that they were discovered and attacked by [Ms A variant] and her family and that whatever the applicant was saying was true. He states that he experienced many problems in 2016 and between 2019 and 2020 especially after the leak of the data breach his fear had been heightened. He says that the family left Egypt because of the problems caused by [Ms A variant’s] family and many other groups. He says that he talked to an unnamed man in Australia and for more than a year they asked him to help them. He says that he got in touch with the [Country 1] Embassy in August 2018 and met a man called [name] and tried to get a visa to go to [Country 1]. He tried with [a named church leader]. He asked him to help exactly like he used to help many other people. He states that the priest was under a lot of pressure and couldn’t help him. He states that he is living in danger and can’t be in touch with the Tribunal because of limitations on his movement.
The videos concluded.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify that she feared Egyptian intelligence were targeting them in Australia as a result of the data breach. The Tribunal asked the applicant through her adviser whether they could obtain confirmation from the Federal Court as to whether the applicant’s data was part of the data leak.
The Tribunal attempted to call the applicant’s husband but was unsuccessful.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that despite the many attacks on her husband, he appeared to have survived and put to her that if the family of [Ms A] wanted him dead then they appeared to be at best incompetent or that the events had been fabricated. The applicant said that they didn’t want to kill her husband but to find out where she and the children were. However according to the police reports the assailants on every occasion threatened to kill him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about why she had concerns in relation to her parents’ safety and she said she didn’t know. When pressed she said that her concerns arose from the alleged data breach. She said that they were afraid of saying anything because of the data breach. The Tribunal reminded her that there was no evidence that her information had been placed on the internet. The Tribunal put to her that the co-incidence of the apparent breach of her information and the incidents were not necessarily related but accepted that she saw it a different way.
The applicant’s representative reported to the Tribunal that they had been in touch with the Federal Court and been advised that the applicant’s information had not been accessed or released as a result of the breach.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any other reasons why she feared harm if she and her daughters were required to return to Egypt either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The applicant said that she has been in Australia for nine years and they would know that they were failed asylum seekers. The applicant said that there were many problems in Egypt at the moment. The applicant’s daughter said that they were fearful that as asylum seekers they would be targeted by the government. She said that her father did not really talk to them or tell them anything and never expressed his feelings. The Tribunal put to the applicant that despite being away for nine years her husband had not been able to provide any relevant evidence to support the applicant’s claims.
Information received after the Tribunal hearing
The applicant provided the Tribunal with a submission after the hearing along with the following documents:

a.     Copy of the original hospital letter regarding her haemorrhoid surgery on [the day in] June 2014
b.     Legal advice with translation – the letter states that no third party can obtain the documents except the benefitted party who are their alleged persecutors
c.     Declaration dated 30 April 2023 from her sister.

The applicant maintains and defends her earlier claims but also adds that they have been in Australia for 9 years and the Egyptian authorities will conclude that they have been on a protection visa which will put them in danger if they are required to return to Egypt. She states that the Egyptian Government has been investigating them, as evident from the events over the past two years (break-ins, strange and suspicious phone calls and communications with the whole family). The applicant states that the Egyptian authorities have the power to threaten and collect information about them whilst they are in Australia. She states that they are fearful of what will happen to them should they return to Egypt.
The applicant states that she has attempted multiple times to contact her husband but has failed to do so.
Country information – independent sources
The Tribunal has taken account of the information provided by the applicant relating to the attacks on Christians over several recent years and acknowledges that Christians, are subject to random attacks at their churches, including killings of church leaders and others, and that civilians are harassed and may face other discriminatory behaviour. The Tribunal has also taken into account the country report provided by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs as set out in the following extracts.
Country information - DFAT Country Information Report: Egypt (June 2019)
There is no statutory prohibition in Egypt on converting from one religion to another. In order to convert to Christianity, authorities require documents from the receiving church, identity documents and fingerprints. Checks are also made on criminal history as conversion often requires a change in name. Converts to Islam will generally have their conversions recognised and their identity cards changed accordingly without difficulty or delay. However, courts and government officials have generally interpreted sharia as prohibiting conversion from Islam.
Authorities have at times reportedly refused to recognise such conversions, including through failing to amend a convert’s national identity card (and corresponding record) to reflect their chosen faith. This has significant ramifications for personal status issues, such as marriage and divorce, and the state’s view of the religious identity of any children born to a convert. Egyptian children obtain a national identity card at age 16, with their religious identity matching that of their parents (their Muslim parent, in the case of a mixed marriage between a Muslim man and Christian woman).
A 2011 court ruling allowed Christians who converted to Islam and then back to Christianity (generally in order to more easily access divorce) to amend their identity cards to reflect their return to their original faith. DFAT understands, however, that only a small number of such individuals have been permitted to do so, and that several thousand others are still waiting to have their cards changed back.
Converts from Islam to other religions are not generally subject to officially sanctioned violence, detention or surveillance. However, they face significant societal discrimination in the form of rejection, ostracism and sometimes violence from their families or communities. Such discrimination is worse in poorer and rural areas, which tend to be more socially conservative. The level of discrimination is likely to be higher if the convert engages in proselytization.
DFAT is aware of anecdotal reports of Christian women and girls being abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Such reports have occasionally led to increased tensions and clashes between Christian and Muslim communities, particularly when the alleged abductions involve family members of Christian priests. However, there is little evidence to suggest that forced conversions occur as a regular phenomenon. DFAT assesses that most religious conversions in Egypt occur either to enable a person to marry someone from another faith, or to access divorce.
DFAT assesses that a person converting from Islam faces a moderate risk of official discrimination. They may experience difficulties in having their conversion officially recognised, including on national identity cards, which may affect their ability to access government or religious services. DFAT assesses that a person converting from Islam faces a high risk of societal discrimination in the form of rejection, ostracism and possible violence from their families and communities.
There are no legal barriers to prevent Christians from being visible in public life, and a number of Christians have become prominent and influential in Egyptian politics and business. DFAT understands that the percentage of Christians in the Egyptian civil service is broadly representative of the religious breakdown of the population. However, Christians tend to be under-represented in senior civil servant roles, and in the upper ranks of the military and security services. It is very rare for Christians to be appointed as presidents, deans or vice-deans in public universities. While anti-discriminatory laws and legal protections exist, these are not always enforced fairly and Christians may experience some discrimination, particularly in rural areas.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) runs a program in Egypt that assists voluntary returnees, in cooperation with the country from which they are returning. Egyptian authorities cooperate with the IOM in these arrangements. DFAT assesses that people who return to Egypt after several years’ absence will not face any adverse attention on their return due to their absence. Likewise, DFAT assesses that failed asylum seekers will not face adverse attention because of their failed application for asylum when they return to Egypt.
Egypt accepts involuntary returnees. Egyptian officials generally pay little regard to failed asylum seekers upon their return to the country, although it is possible that some individuals will be questioned upon entry or will have their entry delayed. Many thousands of Egyptians enter and leave the country every day. Egyptians who out-stay their work or tourist visas in other countries are regularly returned to Egypt with no attention paid to them by authorities. DFAT is not aware of failed asylum seekers being reported by airport authorities to the Ministry of the Interior or any of the security services beyond the normal processes for returning Egyptian nationals.
DFAT assesses that Egyptian embassy or other official usually take note of political activities conducted by Egyptians abroad. However, only particularly high-profile cases (i.e. those that gain media notoriety in Egypt) are generally of interest to Egyptian authorities. Lower profile political activists may be questioned on return to Egypt but are unlikely to be detained or otherwise mistreated.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant putting the above information to her and sought her response. The Tribunal informed the applicant that depending upon her response or comments on that information, it may form the reason, or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.
The applicant responded on 24 August 2023 restating that she feared returning to Egypt because she would be persecuted by [Mr B] and his family, and her daughter [Daughter A] would be taken away from her because [Mr B] had custody of her daughter granted to him by an Egyptian Court.
Credibility
In assessing whether the Applicant would suffer significant harm if she returned to Egypt in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal is guided by the observations and comments of both the High Court and Federal Court of Australia in a number of decisions. The courts have made it clear that it is important that the Tribunal is sensitive to the difficulties faced by asylum seekers and that it adopts a reasonable approach in making its findings of credibility.
Particular social group – family
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and her daughters constitute a particular social group, being members of the family unit of the applicant’s husband, who is being pursued by people who seek to significantly harm him and his family as a result of her husband’s work in converting Muslims to Christianity.
In Sarrazola v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, Hely J noted at
[33] that:
In Guo Wei Zhi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
(unreported, Full Federal Court, 10 December 1998) the Full Federal
Court did not doubt that a family can be a particular social group within
the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention. Indeed, it is
arguable that the Full Federal Court in Guo Wei Zhi proceeded upon
the basis that a family can constitute a particular social group. Emmett
J said, at 2: "... if the harm feared by the appellant was for reason of
membership of his brother's family, there may be a basis for
affording him refugee status in Australia."[1]
[1] Sarrazola v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 101.
The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant (and her daughters) would suffer significant harm by reason of their PSG being Christian women in Egypt and also considered whether their status as returned asylum seekers could be cause for them being at risk of persecution.
Findings and Reasons
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and her daughters are Coptic Christians and resided in Cairo prior to her departure to Australia and they still own property there.
The Tribunal accepts that the reason the applicant delayed her departure from Egypt was because she was in hospital and that this does not adversely affect her credibility in making a late departure or late application for protection or her fear of harm in Egypt.
The Tribunal does not accept that her husband was involved in the conversion of a Muslim girl, [Ms A] ([or Ms A variant]), to Christianity.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was sexually assaulted or the victim of a failed kidnapping attempt by [Mr B] (and others), or that she was falsely married to one of her alleged attackers ([Mr B]) or that he or his family are claiming her youngest daughter as [Mr B’s] daughter.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and her family are being monitored by the Egyptian government, or anyone else, or even that they are of any interest to them for the reasons claimed, or for any other reason.
Claims in relation to the conversion of a Muslim girl to Christianity
The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal in relation to this matter was vague, lacking in relevant detail and unpersuasive. She claimed she was unaware of her husband’s activities in relation to the church, where he went, what he did or where he is and what he has been doing for the past eight years except in the most perfunctory of ways and unsupported by reliable evidence. She said, and her daughters confirmed, that her husband was a quiet man and did not talk much. They said that this was a particular characteristic of his personality.
The applicant has said that she cannot reach her husband except at random times and he has not made himself available to the Tribunal to attend a hearing. The reasons given are that he has no phone signal from the [location] and cannot leave because he has no car. The Tribunal finds this reasoning contrived. On the letterhead of the statement provided by [Location 1] there is a landline phone number. Its not clear why the applicant or her husband could not utilise this number. Given the nature of their circumstances and the alleged persecution, rape, attempted killings, kidnappings and custody matters, its difficult to see why the [location] would not assist the applicant in his attempts to escape his situation and, at the very least, allow him to use the phone.
If the applicant’s claims are true then her husband is the only witness who can corroborate those claims contemporaneously and given what is at risk, the Tribunal would expect them to find a way to ensure that he was able to give evidence to support his wife and children. The Tribunal emphasised on several occasions to the applicant that without her husband’s evidence, it would find it difficult to accept his claims about his role in the conversion of [Ms A variant]. Despite the applicant’s claims that she cannot get in touch with her husband more recently, he was nevertheless able to record and send two videos to her for use at the Tribunal hearing at the beginning of April 2023 and write to the Tribunal about his concerns in relation to his alleged surveillance by the Egyptian authorities as a result of the data breach on the Federal Court of Australia.
The videos recorded by the applicant’s husband were requested and sent to the applicant’s adviser in April 2023 prior to the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal received them on 8 April 2023. In those videos the applicant’s husband confirms the names and dates of birth of the applicant and their children and states that everything his wife says is the truth. He gives little additional relevant or contemporaneous information to assist the Tribunal in making a positive finding about his claims. There is no indication of where the video was recorded. There is no English translation of the videos but they were played in the hearing where the Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in translating the content.
The applicant says that her husband has been living at [Location 1] since June 2021 and had departed his job in around September 2019. However, in his application to [Country 1] he claimed that he was a supervisor at the [Agency 1 variant]. The Tribunal notes that he may have made that statement in order to mislead the [Country 1] authorities about his employment status in order to obtain a visa.
There is a statement from [Location 1] dated 27 February 2023 stating that the applicant’s husband has been residing with them since 19 June 2021 because some people want to harm him. Even if the Tribunal can rely on this document as authentic, it does not assist the applicant since it does not indicate why her husband is being tracked or who wants to harm him or for what reason. It seems to the Tribunal that any document from [Location 1] that it could rely on would provide more relevant details. It’s difficult to understand why the applicant’s husband would not provide the [location] with a full account of his difficulties, particularly as they stem from his alleged assistance in converting a Muslim woman to Christianity.
The applicant’s evidence is that her husband was a volunteer at the church and his involvement in the conversions was to help the converts find food and a job. At other times she has stated that he also helped with providing religious instruction. Even if this is true, it is difficult to imagine that the family of [Ms A] would target the applicant’s husband for harm rather than the priest who performed the conversion and baptism.
The Tribunal has also considered a “Certificate” from the [Official 2] of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Cairo stating that the applicant’s husband has been subject to persecution and many types of threats to his life from Islamic fundamentalists and some Islamic groups due to his service and religious beliefs and which nearly led to his death. This is dated [in] July 2016. Again, if the Tribunal were to be minded to accept this document as authentic and give it any weight, it would expect the Church to be aware of the full details of why the applicant’s husband was being threatened. Indeed, the statement claims that he was being pursued by Islamic fundamentalists and groups. He was not. He was being pursued, allegedly, by the family of a young woman whom he claims to have assisted to convert from Islam to Christianity. In the Tribunal’s mind, the omission of these significant details from the [Official 2] of the Coptic Orthodox Church, diminishes any weight the Tribunal can this document as corroboration of the applicant’s claims.
In the absence of oral evidence from the applicant’s husband, the Tribunal is unable to satisfy itself that the applicant’s claims are credible. She has repeatedly stated that she does not know anything about her husband’s activities, saying that he “doesn’t talk much” and her daughter’s evidence at the Tribunal hearing also confirmed this. Her account of the alleged conversion of [Ms A] is patchy and the fact that neither the statement from the Church and [Location 1] have corroborated that claim has led the Tribunal to form a view that the claim lacks credibility and has been contrived for the purposes of supporting the applicant’s protection claims. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s husband was involved in any way in the conversion of [Ms A], or anyone else, from Islam to Christianity, or that he is on the run and hiding from [Ms A’s] family, including [Mr B] or anyone else for any reason.
Assault, attempted kidnappings, false marriage and custody arrangements
The applicant’s evidence in relation to the alleged assault at the hearing was brief and caused the applicant significant distress such that proceedings were adjourned for a period whilst she collected herself. She did not want her daughters in the room during the provision of this evidence. The Tribunal is therefore relying, largely, on her written submission about the incident.
In her statement of October 2014 provided at folio 065 of her submission to the Tribunal, the applicant claimed that she was assaulted and raped at her apartment on [a day in] June 2014 at around 11am by three men because of her husband’s involvement in the conversion of [Ms A]. She does not name the men involved or identify that [Mr B] was one of her assailants. The Tribunal is mindful that the applicant may not have known what [Mr B] looked like or that he was one of the assailants at the time. However, the statement was written some time after the alleged attack and the Tribunal considers that the omission of this important detail diminishes the persuasiveness of her claims.
The applicant claims these three men threatened to kill her husband and kidnap her children and she was “left between life and death after they tried to carry me and take me with them”. She claims her neighbours heard the noise and intervened to save her from being taken by those men. The neighbour called her husband immediately and he rushed home. They “contacted a doctor who came and advised (my) husband to do tests and a check”.
Neither the applicant nor her husband contacted the police. This is despite there being actual eyewitnesses to her assault and attempted kidnapping by the three men and an examination by a doctor at the scene shortly thereafter. Nor did they report the alleged attempted kidnapping of her children, even though there were many eyewitnesses. And indeed, eyewitnesses who assisted taking the children from the hands of the alleged kidnappers.
The applicant’s mother has also provided an undated statement (Folio 082 of the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal). She claims that the applicant came to her house on [the following day] (after the alleged assault) and she was shocked at her appearance. She does not disclose that the applicant informed her that she had been raped and the applicant has told the Tribunal that neither her mother nor her father have been told of the incident.
The Tribunal accepts that reporting any sexual assault is difficult in any circumstances. However, on this occasion the applicant had witnesses to an assault and attempted kidnapping, and was attended by a doctor in the immediate aftermath who also performed some tests, according to the applicant’s statement. At the very least the witnesses could testify to her alleged kidnapping and an assault by those three men and assist in their identification. The applicant told the Tribunal at the hearing that it was impossible to report assaults to the police as they would invariably ask for motives, and they could not say that it was due to revenge for assisting in a Christian conversion.
However, the Tribunal notes that the applicant’s husband has had no difficulty in reporting to the police and engaging a lawyer to support his claims of the three alleged assaults by [Mr B]. According to the police report, the applicant’s husband did not inform the police, at the time he reported the attacks against him, that they were revenge for his assistance in converting a Muslim woman to Christianity. As such, the Tribunal does not accept that the reason why the alleged assault was not reported, was because it would reveal the role of the applicant’s husband in the conversion of a Muslim girl to Christianity.
The applicant claims that one of the men who assaulted her was [Mr B] (the father of [Ms A]/[Ms A variant]). However, as the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s husband had no involvement in this alleged conversion, it follows that [Mr B] would not assault the applicant for the reason claimed. She has claimed no other reason for the assault, nor has she withdrawn her allegation that [Mr B] was one of the men who assaulted her. Indeed, she has strengthened that assertion by claiming that [Mr B] has claimed her daughter [Daughter A] is a consequence of that rape.
Be that as it may, the Tribunal also considers that the applicant’s failure to report the crime, including the alleged rape, assault and attempted kidnapping of herself, despite it being witnessed by her neighbours, significantly diminishes the credibility of her claims. More importantly, whilst she claims that she was attended by a doctor at the scene immediately after the event, it seems improbable that she would not have been able to obtain a report from him confirming a rape or an assault or both. In the Tribunal’s mind, this also significantly diminishes the credibility of the applicant’s claims.
The applicant goes on to allege that “the people” who attacked her found out that she was pregnant. This allegedly happened two days after the applicant attended a medical analysis laboratory on [a day in] July 2014 for some tests, including a pregnancy test, ie on [a later day in] July 2014. She claims that “these people” were demanding that she marry their son as she was pregnant with his child. Since the applicant has subsequently claimed that [Mr B] has alleged that he was the father of her child, it seems safe to assume that [Mr B] and one of his parents were part of the group that allegedly assaulted her. [Mr B] has been variously described previously by the applicant as a [Leader] and the father of the [Ms A]. Her husband has referred to him as the father of [Ms A], her cousin or her brother, but not a [Leader].
There is no credible explanation as to why [Mr B], or his father, or indeed anyone else was able to access the applicant’s medical records, how they accessed them, or how they knew the applicant went to the laboratory for a pregnancy test just two days after the alleged assault. The Tribunal does not accept that these people were in any position to be able to order, obtain, or implement a way of monitoring the applicant and her family in any way at all, let alone such that they could obtain her medical records, or had any reason to monitor her activities her at all.
The applicant also claims that [later in] July her husband told her that they ([Mr B] and his family) made a false marriage certificate and [in] October 2014 they allegedly made an application to the court to force her to return to Egypt to be his wife. It seems to the Tribunal that if the marriage certificate were false there is no basis upon which a court could enforce an application for her to return to be [Mr B’s] wife.
The applicant has also provided a document (at folio 176 of her submission to the Tribunal) dated [in] February 2019 brought by [Mr B] for custody of the applicant’s daughter. However, if the marriage was fake, it is difficult to understand how the court could make a ruling in relation to the custody arrangements of her daughter on the basis of a marriage that did not exist. More importantly, it is difficult to understand how the court could make any such ruling about custody arrangements without a birth certificate for the child in question. There is no indication in the document that a birth certificate was presented to the court. The Tribunal has significant doubts about the authenticity of these documents and considers that they have been produced for the sole purpose of supporting the applicant’s claims.
Furthermore, the document (folio 177 of the applicant’s submission) states that the applicant was legally notified and asked to relinquish her custody of the child. It seems to the Tribunal that if this document has any credibility, the applicant would have been able to produce the aforesaid notification. She has not.
In her original statement provide to the Tribunal at Folio 066 of her submissions, she claimed that [Ms A] was the daughter of [a named Leader]. The applicant’s husband also states this in his statement to the police at Folio 121 of the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal. It is noted that [Mr B] is also called a [Leader] in this statement. This is the man that she also alleges raped her and is claiming that he is the father of her daughter. It is not clear when the applicant became aware that the man who raped her and the father of [Ms A] were the same person, or that he was a [Leader].

100. Cumulatively, the lack of credible evidence, inconsistencies and omissions in the applicant’s oral and written account over time, along with the unreliability of the documentation provided, has led the Tribunal to form a view that the applicant’s account of the assault and subsequent false marriage and custody battle, lacks credibility and have been contrived solely for the purposes of supporting the applicant’s protection claims.
Kidnapping of the children
101. The applicant told the Tribunal that these people tried to kidnap her children when they were with her mother on around [specified days in] June. The applicant’s mother has provided a statement (undated) at Folio 082 of the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal. There, she states that when she and the girls were walking down the street two masked persons got out of a car and tried to kidnap the girls. She states that they pushed her to the ground, but pedestrians came to their aid when they heard the screaming. She states that the offenders got scared and escaped in their car.
102. Again, despite there being witnesses and the attempt being made in broad daylight, neither the applicant nor her mother reported this incident to the police. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has assumed that [Mr B] was involved in the kidnapping, making good on his threat. However, the Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s mother did not know [Mr B], and in any case the alleged kidnappers were masked.

103. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s children were subject to an attempted kidnapping for the reasons claimed, or for any other reason.
Harm experienced by the applicant’s husband
104. The applicant’s husband claims that on [a day in] March 2016 he was assaulted by a man on a motorbike. He went to the police station and then to the hospital. He claims that he changed his residence after this. There is a medical report dated [in] March 2016 referring to him suffering from bruising and abrasions as a result of being hit by a solid object. Even if the document is authentic, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it constitutes corroborative evidence of an attack on the applicant’s husband by [Mr B] for the reasons claimed.
105. The applicant’s husband has claimed that [Mr B] and two others attacked him and set fire to an apartment he had rented at 7am on [the day in] April 2016. He has produced an “Investigation Report” allegedly opened at [Police Station 1] on that date. One of the assailants identified himself as [Mr B] the father of [Ms A]. The applicant’s husband also alleges that two weeks after this he was assaulted and forced into a vehicle where he was threatened with death. He managed to escape. The statement is undated (see folio 142-143 of the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal). There is also an undated statement by the lawyers of the applicant’s husband detailing the reports made by the applicant and complaints lodged by the lawyers in relation to the dismissal of his reports of crimes against him. Further documents show that the investigations of those complaints were dismissed within a week of them being made.
106. The Tribunal is not an expert on the Egyptian legal system, but it seems unlikely that a complaint can be raised, investigated and dismissed within a week. It may be that the applicant wishes to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the complaints were dismissed because of police corruption; however, neither she nor her husband has made that claim.
107. The applicant’s husband appears to have escaped from three men whom he alleges are determined to kill him on three separate occasions. It seems to the Tribunal that if the applicant’s husband was indeed subject to these attacks by determined men, he would indeed be dead or at least more seriously harmed. The lawyer’s testimony and the police reports rely on the self-reporting of the applicant’s husband and do not persuade the Tribunal that they corroborate the alleged assaults, even if the documents can be relied upon as authentic.
108. The applicant has told the Tribunal that they have not reported assaults in the past because the police will ask for the motivation behind the assaults, and they do not want to disclose that its because the applicant’s husband was involved in the conversion of a Muslim woman to Christianity. However, even if the Tribunal accepts the authenticity of the police reports, none of the reports made by the applicant’s husband include him declaring the reason for the assaults were his role in the conversion of a young Muslim woman to Christianity.
109. Without being able to speak to the applicant’s husband the Tribunal is not able to test his claims.
110. Furthermore, since the Tribunal has found that the applicant’s husband was not involved in the conversion of [Ms A] to Christianity, or indeed anyone, it follows that it does not accept that [Ms A’s] family would seek to harm him or members of his family or threaten him or them with death or significant harm for that reason.
111. The applicant’s husband approached the [Country 1] and Australian embassies on three separate occasions and did not disclose to them his difficulties, the attacks on him, the attacks on his wife or the legal machinations put in place by the man who allegedly raped her to claim custody of his daughter. Indeed, the applicant’s husband has not reported these incidents to anybody else, not even the police (except in relation to the assaults on him personally) or his church or the people giving him protection at the [location]. The Tribunal does not accept that the reason he has not reported this to the police is because “such a confession would open many problems that I cannot endure”. (See folio 142 of the applicant’s submission to the Tribunal).
112. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s husband has been harmed, or threatened with harm or death, by [Mr B] and/or his friends and/or [Mr B’s] family, or indeed any persons for the reasons claimed, or for any other reason. Nor does the Tribunal accept that the applicant’s husband is on the run or in hiding or in fear for his life for the reasons claimed, or for any other reason.
The applicant’s parents
113. The applicant’s brother has written a letter dated 18 February 2023 stating that he has concerns regarding his parents’ safety in Egypt and applied for them to reunite with him permanently in [Country 3]. He states that he has informed the applicant that he believes that Egypt remains unsafe for her and her family to return to and that she should not go back under any circumstances.
114. The Tribunal makes the following observations about this information. Firstly, the applicant’s brother does not indicate why it is unsafe either for his parents or the applicant to return to Egypt. Secondly, he has not resided in Egypt for several years. Finally, he appears to be sponsoring his parents under family reunion provisions and to help him care for his [child], not for protection reasons. The Tribunal does not consider this letter by the applicant’s brother to corroborate her claims that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the five convention reasons.
Break-ins, suspicious calls and the Federal Court Data Breach
115. The applicant claims that she, her mother and her two daughters have received unwanted contact from people wanting to collect personal information including their addresses since the data breach at the Federal Court. These unwanted calls have come from [a named] Bank and insurance companies, as well as unknown Australian mobile numbers. She reported this to the Australian [Agency 3] however there has been no response that the applicant has provided to the Tribunal aside from a confirmation letter that they have received the complaint.
116. The applicant also claims that her daughters have received friend requests from unknown people.
117. The Tribunal, and the applicant were notified at the hearing that the Federal Court confirmed with her adviser that her personal information and details of her protection case were not part of the breach. That is, none of her information was accessed by the public. Whatever the reason for these calls, and it is not unreasonable to propose that they are robo-calls or cold calls, or even scam calls which are increasing in their frequency to everyone with electronic contact information, the Tribunal is confident they are not the result of the data breach of the Federal Court of Australia.
118. The applicant maintains that she and her daughters and even her husband are being “investigated” and monitored by the Egyptian authorities and that they will be in danger if they return. She claims that the break-ins of her house and car were not motivated by theft but by someone attempting to collect information about her and her children or someone threatening them. She claims that a “security force” may have put a listening device on her vehicle. She has not gone on to suggest what information they were looking for or what reason they, or anyone, would have for breaking into their house to seek information except to suggest that it is in relation to the claims she made in her protection application. In any case, there is no evidence to support this claim and given that the applicant’s information was not publicly released as a result of the data breach, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the break-ins were related to the Egyptian government or the claims that she has made in her protection application.
119. The applicant and her daughter also gave evidence that a phone call by the embassy after a visit by her daughter to obtain a new passport were suspicious and indicated that the Egyptian government were interested in their visa status in Australia. They have suggested that the staff at the Egyptian embassy in Canberra must therefore be very interested in investigating their status. Both the applicant and her daughter claim that the call was highly irregular and an illegal attempt to gain information about her visa status. The Tribunal however does not see anything sinister in the contents of the call, nor would it deduce that such a call is proof that the Egyptian government has an interest in them or their visa status in Australia such that it would lead them to develop a well-founded fear of persecution or suffer significant harm.
120. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support this claim. The phone call may have been for any reason. There is no evidence that the Egyptian embassy in Canberra or the authorities in Egypt have any interest in the visa status of the applicant and her children, or indeed Egyptian citizens in general or whether they have applied for protection in another country. Failed asylum seekers return to Egypt all the time and are assisted in doing so by the IOM. Country information does not support a claim that the authorities have an interest in or will even interview or question anyone who has returned to Egypt after an extended absence or even as a known failed asylum seeker.
121. Despite being informed that her data and details about her protection claims were not part of the data breach at the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant maintains that the Egyptian government people and agencies know about her case and want to harm her and her daughters. She states that they want to punish her because she has accused a Muslim man of raping her and that her husband was involved in converting a Muslim woman to Christianity.
122. In relation to the applicant’s claims that the Egyptian authorities have the power to interrogate, threaten and collect information about them whilst they are in Australia, she has provided no evidence to support this claim. She suggests that their interest in her and her family stems from her claim for protection involving her accusations against a Muslim man, however she has made no allegations against the Egyptian government or its agencies that would cause them to develop any other interest in her. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Egyptian asylum seekers in Australia, or anywhere else, are subject to harassment or investigation by the Egyptian authorities or agencies either in Egypt or the country in which the claim has been made.
Coptic Christian women in Egypt
123. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant and her daughters will suffer significant harm by reason of their gender or Christianity, or a combination of those factors, should they be required to return to Egypt either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
124. The Tribunal is mindful that Christians in Egypt can be harmed, however the Tribunal does not accept that being a Christian or a Coptic Christian woman without more means that there is a real chance or a real risk that a Christian applicant would suffer serious or significant harm as contemplated by the Migration Act. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) assesses that Christians may experience some discrimination, particularly in rural areas.
125. The Tribunal has considered wither there is a chance that the applicant and her children would be homeless and without male support if they were required to return to Egypt and thus unable to subsist. The Tribunal notes that the applicant and her husband still own their apartment in Cairo. Indeed, it is not improbably to suggest that the applicant’s husband has remained living there and continued to work in the [same industry] in Egypt in the intervening period, and she will therefore not be without support. Her parents also remain living there.
126. The Tribunal asked the applicant to make a submission in relation to whether she feared persecution by reason of her gender and Christianity and she stated that the reason she feared persecution was in relation to the claims she made that her daughter [Daughter A] would be taken away from her by [Mr B] and his family. As the Tribunal has rejected those claims, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant and/or her daughters have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of their gender or Christian faith if they return to Egypt either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Returning failed asylum seekers
127. The applicant maintains a belief that she and her family are being surveilled by the Egyptian authorities. This is despite the Federal court informing her that her information was not released as a result of the data breach in 2020, and also in the absence of any corroborating or even plausible circumstantial evidence.
128. The Tribunal will rely on the DFAT information which states that the Egyptian authorities pay little regard to failed asylum seekers upon their return. The applicant and her husband are of no interest to the Egyptian authorities, they do not have a profile which would bring them to the attention of the authorities for any reason either now or in the foreseeable future. She and her daughters did not depart illegally. They are not subject to any arrest warrants or investigations or court cases. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the basis of the evidence before it, that that the applicant will face significant harm by reason of her return to Egypt as a failed asylum seeker, or that she is of any adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities, or of anyone else, for the reasons claimed or for any other reason.
129. For the reasons above and based on the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s husband was involved in any activity relating to the conversion of Muslim women and/or girls to Christianity and specifically it does not accept that the applicant’s husband had any involvement in the conversion of a young Muslim woman named [Ms A], to Christianity, or that he was even acquainted with such a woman. The Tribunal does not therefore accept that the applicant’s husband was assaulted, harmed or threatened by the family of [Ms A], or that his apartment was set on fire, for the reasons claimed or for any other reason. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s husband is on the run and fearful of his life and moving from place to place, or that he is in hiding in [the location] for the reasons claimed or for any other reason. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was sexually assaulted, subject to any other assault or subject to an attempted kidnapping by [Mr B] for the reasons claimed, or for any other reason, or that her children were subject to a kidnapping attempt by [Mr B] or members of his family. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is subject to a false marriage to [Mr B] or that [Mr B] or his family have custody of her daughter [Daughter A] whom they claim is [Mr B’s] daughter as a result of the alleged sexual assault. The Tribunal does not accept that [Mr B], or his family, or people associated with him have the ability, will or capacity to obtain the applicant’s personal medical information, or indeed any other information about the applicant and her family. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and her family are subject to the surveillance of the Egyptian government or that they are of any interest to the government of Egypt at all for the reasons claimed, or for any other reason either now or in the future. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has suffered significant harm, or will suffer significant harm, for the reason claimed or for any other reason, or that she will suffer harm now or in the foreseeable future for the reasons claimed or for any other reason should she return to Egypt.
Conclusion
130. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a). As the applicant does not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa, it follows that the other applicants do not meet the criteria set out in s 36(2)(b) and cannot be granted the visa.
131. The Tribunal has turned its mind to whether or not there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Egypt, there is a real risk that that the applicant will suffer significant harm. On the basis of the evidence before it, and having weighed all the matters individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will suffer harm for the reasons claimed or for any other reason should she be required to return to Egypt now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
132. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant meets the criteria set out in s 36(2)(aa). As the applicant does not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa, it follows that the other applicants do not meet the criteria set out in s 36(2)(c) and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
133. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Ann Duffield
Senior Member