2015965 (Refugee)

This case concerned two applicants from Egypt who sought protection visas. The applicants claimed they feared persecution due to their evangelical Christian convictions and alleged fraudulent activities at a bank where one applicant was employed. Specifically, they claimed that the Egyptian authorities would wrongly impute complicity in criminal activities to the male applicant, and that the female applicant feared forced marriage to a Muslim extremist and an inability to practice her religious calling due to laws against insulting religion. The applicants also expressed fear of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, based on the accepted evidence, either applicant was entitled to Australia's protection as refugees or, alternatively, on complementary protection grounds. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicants' claims in light of Ministerial Direction No 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments.

The Tribunal found that both applicants were not credible witnesses and therefore did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The reasoning focused on inconsistencies and a lack of reliability in their testimony, leading to the conclusion that they were not genuinely evangelical Christians and that the alleged fraudulent transactions at the bank were not substantiated to the required standard. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicants under either the refugee or complementary protection criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicants' applications for protection visas were dismissed.