Tribunal decisions

The decision

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/10962/2014

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Heard at Field House
Decision & Reasons Promulgated
On 11 August 2016
On 29 September 2016

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RIMINGTON

Between

MS
(aNONYMITY DIRECTION MADE)
Appellant
and

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Miss Clark, instructed by Broudie Jackson Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr Harrison, Home Office Presenting Officer

DECISION AND REASONS
Direction Regarding Anonymity - Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008
Unless and until a Tribunal or court directs otherwise, the appellant is granted anonymity. No report of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify him or any member of their family. This direction applies both to the appellant and to the respondent. Failure to comply with this direction could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
1. The appellant is a citizen of Egypt who appealed, with permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, which in a determination promulgated on 13 March 2015, dismissed the appeal against the Secretary of State's decision of 21st November 2014 to refuse his claim for asylum, humanitarian protection and protection of his human rights and giving removal directions. The First-tier Tribunal decision was challenged and came before Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds who found a material error of law and set aside the decision without preserving any findings of fact.
2. The matter came before me following a transfer order for a resumed hearing.
3. The appellant claimed to have arrived in the United Kingdom on 28 March 2013 and claimed asylum on 30 April 2013. The core of the appellant's claim is that he is a Coptic Christian who had experienced persecution because of his religion in his home area and upon relocation claimed to have been pursued by non-state agents owing to his religion. The threats he had claimed had occurred were threats received by telephone and this resulted in him having to relocate on numerous occasions. Prior to his entry to the United Kingdom he made a series of applications to enter the UK. Three applications being made as a student visitor in 2011 and a further application in 2012 as a student and as a visitor in 2013. It was as a result of the last visa issued on 26 February 2013 for a visit, that he entered the United Kingdom.
Documentation
4. In accordance with the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2014 the following documents were annexed:
Screening interview dated 10th May 2013
Asylum Interview record dated 28th May 2013
CRS record and web visa applications (15th June 2011, 21 September 2011, 28th December 2011, 2nd August 2012, 21st February 2013)
Bundle of documents and background evidence submitted during the asylum interview
Appeal bundle of documents submitted by appellant's representatives including witness statement dated 3rd July 2013, statement of Michael S dated 5th July 2013, email from Father J S dated 29th May 2013, copies of photographs, prescriptions from Egypt, phone contracts and translations, ID card for J E, S A, letter from St Michaels Church, bundle of objective evidence regarding general country information
Second appeal bundle submitted 1-31 including medical letter from GP dated 4th April 2013,
Letter from representatives dated 18th March 2014 with bundle of objective evidence
5. The appellant's representatives submitted documentation in the form of indexed bundles 1 - 3. These included two witness statements from the appellant dated 19th January 2015 and 20th July 2016. A witness statement from Dr M S, his uncle dated 19th January 2015, a psychiatric report from a Dr Tobani consultant psychiatrist dated 10th February 2015, a psychiatric report from Dr Chandra Ghosh dated 25 July 2016 and extensive country background information.
The appellant's claim
6. The appellant is an Egyptian national born on 4th August 1990 and claims he was a former resident of Abokorkas. He states that the majority of his immediate family are Coptic Christians and remained in Egypt but he now lived in the United Kingdom with his uncle Dr Michael S, an orthodpaedic specialist doctor.
7. The appellant asserts that as he and his parents are Coptic Christians who were now living in a church to which he could not go, he feared returning to Egypt. On 17th April 2011 the Salafists, under the belief that the people of his village had killed two of their people, began to raid and loot the houses in the village. They took over houses in the village as well as his village land and houses were burnt. The names on land deeds were changed and thus their opponents sequestrated their land. The appellant was threatened, being told that he must convert to Islam or he would be killed. (AIR question 54-55, 96-97 and 99-101). On 18 April 2011 he left his village to live with people in Cairo who were aware of his situation. At a later stage he briefly returned to is village to see if his passport had been delivered.
8. Whilst in Cairo he received threats on his mobile phone and the first of these threats occurred in the beginning of May 2011 and the last being on 27 February 2013. During that time he changed location and mobile number eleven times but each time the salafists managed to find his number and locate him. He secured a job with a computer company on 1st September 2012 and he was sent text messages such as "M, we know that you are living in Der Al Moharra and this is the last chance for you. Are you converting to Islam or ...?" He stated that each time it would take people about ten days to find his new number. Each time he changed his number he believed he was traced because he had to provide his name and ID every time he got a new mobile.
9. His father was forced to retire early by the Salafists through their various accusations. In the end his father decided to retire in order to keep his honour. (AIR Question 131-132). The appellant believed that he would not be able to relocate as the salafists would still find him.
The respondent's case
10. The Secretary of State accepted, after detailed questioning, that the appellant was a Coptic Christian. Further, Dr M S, as well as being his uncle, was a deacon in the Coptic church where he worshipped in L, Wales. The email from Father J S of the same church confirmed that the family were known to be very religious.
11. The respondent noted the appellant's claim that he had to leave his village on 18th April 2011 because of the events described in his interview and in the background information namely the targeted attacks against Coptic Christians and also accepted that the appellant had submitted a CD which contained footage of the attacks in El Minya Governorate and it ws accepted the attacks took place. It was concluded, however, that his claim that he had to leave and his family had to leave Abokorkas remained unsubstantiated.
12. The appellant had, in Cairo, secured a job with the Sotir Company as a computer programmer. He was employed. He claimed to receive threatening telephone messages and he was asked why he continued to purchase new mobile phones, his response was that he needed to have a mobile phone to stay in contact with his family. He was questioned as to why he bought a mobile phone in his own name, exposing him to further danger and although he had submitted copies of phone contracts and translations that related to his claim for changing his number they were considered in line with Tanveer Ahmed IAT 2002 UKIAT 00439. It was not accepted that the documents regarding his phone had a bearing on his claims to receive threats. It was suggested that he should use a mobile phone belonging to a friend or obtain a Sim card on the black market.
13. His claim in his witness statement that his job was not a proper job but created to allow him to gain experience and help bolster his visa claim was not accepted. He would still have had the knowledge of being able to use other methods of communication such as skype. He was an educated and technically able individual. His explanation that he kept a phone to keep in contact with his family was not accepted in view of the risk taking versus the threats from the Salafists. It was also considered to be a discrepancy between his asylum interview, when claiming that he dared not get another mobile phone after a UK visa was issued, compared with his witness statement where he stated that the reason he did not get another phone was because he knew he was leaving the country.
14. Further, he returned to the village of Aborkorkas on five different occasions, albeit that he took precautions such as arriving early (3am) in the morning (AIR 61-63).
15. He claimed to be suffering from mental health problems (severe depression) but the documentation supplied was a letter from a GP not a medico-legal report. These documents were not relied on further to Tanver Ahmed.
16. It was concluded that the Section 8 Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 was engaged. The appellant did not make an asylum claim before being granted leave to enter on the basis of his visit visa and failed to make an asylum claim before being notified of the immigration decision.
17. It was also submitted that there would be adequacy of protection from the Egyptian authorities and failing that he could internally relocate as he had not identified any factors that led to him being an individual at risk. It was considered neither he nor his extended family had a sufficiently high profile within the Coptic Christian community which would result in him being an individual of adverse interest to the Salafist Muslims. His claim ws considered in line with the country guidance case law of MS (Coptic Christians) Egypt CG [2013] UKUT 611 (IAC).
18. It was concluded he was an adult male who was able to relocate and had experience of work and there were no barriers to him relocating. Coptic Christians were generally able to practice their religion and although there had been many reports of violent incidents these were monitored and fell short of establishing that millions of Coptic Christians in Egypt faced a real risk of violent attack amounting to persecution. There is a general freedom of movement within Egypt. He was generally fit and healthy and he would be able to live a relatively normal life should he relocate to any major urban centre.
The hearing
19. At the hearing before me the appellant attended and gave oral testimony. His uncle did not give oral testimony and that Miss Clarke submitted was because he had previously given such testimony and any information he would give would be challenged by the Secretary of State as merely hearsay. The uncle had tendered a statement.
20. The appellant was asked under cross-examination as to the size of El Minya but he did not know how large it was or how many mosques there were. He thought there were possibly ten churches. He confirmed that there was a hospital but he did not know the number of schools. He confirmed that he was a graduate and studied computer studies but stated that he did not work but the job was created for him. He did not have any work since he graduated. He lived in Cairo after the incident between 2011 and 2013 and the church located at places for him to live and he moved from time to time. the church supported him financially and he ws living in secret. his parents were not living with him. At first when he went to Cairo he lived with his brother and sister but subsequently his parents and sister went to the church but he could not go to the church because he was told that it would not be appropriate and he would attract attention. He was a young man and had to leave. He had no fixed address in Cairo. He was asked why he could not live in a monastery and he stated it was not possible because he would cause problems. The exact problem was because of the large incident. He had to been physically harmed but he was afraid it was going to happen.
21. He confirmed he made visit visa applications because he was trying to leave in any possible way. His parents would like to escape but they could not. His brother had been in the army for three and a half to four and a half years and the appellant came to the UK with the assistance of his uncle and he still lived with him in Wales.
22. He confirmed that when he was living at home he made trips to home approximately five times to obtain his posts. This was approximately 300 Km away and someone at the church who had a car had helped him. The house was locked up when he ws going round.
23. The appellant under re-examination confirmed he did not know whether there were young men in the monastery but then stated he did visit the monastery. At this point Miss Clarke was stopped from reading out sections of his statement to him.
24. I asked him why the appellant was targeted rather than his brother and he stated because his brother had gone to the army and inside the army he was safe.
Conclusions
25. The respondent has accepted in this matter that the appellant is a Coptic Christian and also accepted the background information that there were attacks on the Coptic Christian in the area of El Minya which is the location of the appellant's home village of Abokorkas. It would also appear that the respondent has accepted that the appellant's uncle is a deacon in the Coptic Church and the claim that the appellant's father, who is the brother of Dr S, was the head deacon of St Mary's and St George's Church in Abokorkas village in El Minya, Egypt. This is because although Dr Michael S did not attend court there was no specific challenge to the witness statement tendered by him and thus I place some weight on the assertion that both he and his brother, the appellant's father, were deacons and prominent figures in the Coptic church and specifically the appellant's father was the head deacon of the church in Abokorkas in El Minia. The email from Father JS of the same church as the uncle confirmed that this was a very religious family and that the appellant had attended church services at the church in Wales.
26. At the outset it is also clear that the Secretary of State accepted that there were attacks against Coptic Christians in El Minya Governorate in April 2011 and that the appellant has provided background evidence of these incidents and had supplied a CD which he claimed contained video footage of the attacks. The background material specifically refers to a curfew having been placed on Abokorkas after a dispute between Coptic Christians and Muslims and following the dispute 'Christians lived in terror' as recorded inter alia in the article 'Collective Punishment of Egyptian Christians for Death of Two Muslims' April 2011. All the visa applications made by the appellant confirm that he came from Abokorkas.
27. I have also taken into account the medical evidence submitted on behalf of the appellant. At this stage I make clear that I apply the Presidential Guidelines on Vulnerable Witnesses because the medical reports, which I accept, all identify that the appellant is suffering from mental health problems. The GP states that he is suffering with severe depression. Despite this not being a medico legal report as noted by the Secretary of State I do place weight on this report. The report of Dr Tabani which I address below and the report of Dr Ghosh identified post traumatic stress disorder. Both reports are from qualified professional medical practitioners. That the appellant suffers from depression, anxiety and anorexia was also confirmed by the uncle who is a medical practitioner. These reports must also be taken in the round when assessing evidence both with regards the indication of difficult events and with regards his evidence and discrepancies therein. I assess the evidence in the light of these reports. That said, I find the appellant's account to be detailed, internally consistent and consistent with the background and documentary evidence.
28. The report of Dr Tabani who was a consultant psychiatrist in adult psychiatry in Merseycare NHS Trust from 2002 to date assessed the appellant as having post traumatic stress disorder and secondary depressive illness following a severely traumatic incident in Egypt in April 2011. Dr Tabani described the appellant had himself described times in Egypt prior to coming to the UK when he had thought of suicide and wanted to end it all. Specifically when describing his psychiatric history, albeit that the doctor was informed by the appellant himself as to his account, the doctor describes that the appellant "started crying to be with his family". I do note that Dr Tabani did not have access or appear to have access to the background information but the report dated 25th July 2016, from Dr Ghosh, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, confirmed that she had sight of the Reasons for Refusal Letter, asylum interview and screening interview record. She too identified that the appellant had been exposed to a considerable amount of trauma whilst he was in Egypt particularly when he was on the run. She considered that he remains at risk in terms of his suicide and confirmed "I am aware that he is receiving medication for his depression. He needs to address the symptoms of his post traumatic stress disorder as well as the symptoms of loss. He is suffering from a quite severe sense of loss and bereavement because of the separation from his parents and his siblings. I place weight on the fact that the appellant suffers with a mental health difficulties, but also it is noted that he wished to be with his parents as recorded by Dr Tabani. This lends credence to his claim of fear of the Salafists and his inability to return to Egypt.
29. I am guided by MS (Coptic Christians) Egypt CG [2013] UKUT 611 (IAC) and I set out the head note in full
1. 'Notwithstanding that there is inadequate state protection of Coptic Christians in Egypt, they are not at a general risk of persecution or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3, ECHR.
2. However, on current evidence there are some areas where Coptic Christians will face a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3. In general these will be (a) areas outside the large cities; (b) where radical Islamists have a strong foothold; and (c) there have been recent attacks on Coptic Christians or their churches, businesses or properties.
3. On the evidence before the Upper Tribunal, the following are particular risk categories in the sense that those falling within them will generally be able to show a real risk of persecution or treatment contrary to Article 3, at least in their home area:
(i) converts to Coptic Christianity;
(ii) persons who are involved in construction or reconstruction/repair of churches that have been the target for an attack or attacks;
(iii) those accused of proselytising where the accusation is serious and not casual;
(iv) those accused of being physically or emotionally involved with a Muslim woman, where the accusation is made seriously and not casually.
4. Coptic Christian women in Egypt are not in general at real risk of persecution or ill-treatment, although they face difficulties additional to other women, in the form of sometimes being the target of disappearances, forced abduction and forced conversion.
5. However, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, Coptic Christian women in Egypt aged between 14-25 years who lack a male protector, may be at such risk.
6. If a claimant is able to establish that in their home area they fall within one or more of the risk categories identified in 3 (i)-(iv) above or that they come from an area where the local Coptic population faces a real risk of persecution, it will not necessarily follow that they qualify as refugees or as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection or Article 3 ECHR protection. That will depend on whether they can show they would not have a viable internal relocation alternative. In such cases there will be need for a fact-specific assessment but, in general terms, resettlement in an area where Islamists are not strong would appear to be a viable option.
7. None of the above necessarily precludes a Coptic Christian in Egypt from being able to establish a real risk of persecution or ill-treatment in the particular circumstances of their case, e.g. if such an individual has been the target of attacks because he or she is a Coptic Christian'.
30. I take heed of the fact that Coptic Christians are not at a general risk of persecution although the last point within the head note identifies that each case must be assessed as being fact specific. I accept that the appellant comes from a very religious family. Father JS confirms that in his email and the uncle of the appellant who is the brother of the appellant's father, himself holds a role as deacon in the Coptic Christian Church and similarly identifies the religious role undertaken by the appellant's father. This to my mind would raise the profile of the appellant.
31. The appellant was criticised by the Secretary of State for failing to claim asylum before being granted leave to enter of the basis of his visa and before being notified of an immigration decision. The appellant however explained that he was desperate to leave Egypt and made applications on that basis. In the particular circumstances of this case that is an explanation. In view of his mental health I do not find that surprising and do not take this point against him. JT Cameroon v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 878 confirms that it is the duty of the judicial decision maker in every instance to reach his own conclusion upon the credibility of the claimant. Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 should be taken only as part of a global assessment of credibility and this is what I have done. He asserts that his uncle assisted him with his visa applications and although this may not reflect well on the uncle clearly the uncle had particular concerns for this appellant his nephew.
32. He entered the UK on 28th March 2013 and claimed asylum, relatively shortly afterwards, on 30th April 2013 and described in his screening interview and at a first opportunity that there had been fighting between his family and the Salafists on 16th April 2011 and that his cousin's home had been fired. He also described in his screening interview that he was threatened either to convert to Islam or be killed'. S/I 4.2. The appellant has been consistent with this claim since his arrival. I find it credible that he would have been attacked and threatened in his local area.
33. He explained in his oral evidence that he had moved to Cairo to be away from the attackers in his local area. He explained that his father, who would appear to be a deacon, and his mother and sister were offered the protection of the church but as a young man he could not stay in the church. His brother had gone into the army and had secured protection in that manner. I questioned how it was that his brother would be safe and not the appellant but note there was no information on the brother's circumstances or particular religious leanings. The appellant did explain that service in the army was compulsory. There was evidence that the appellant was a practising Coptic Christian. I accept therefore that the appellant may be distinguished from his brother.
34. In support of his claim to have been targeted the appellant produced video evidence of the attacks in the governorate of El Minya which demonstrated the violent attacks on Coptic Christians in that area. His uncle whose evidence was not challenged confirmed the attacks on the family's village. I accept that the appellant would be unable to return there and explained his return as being possible because it occurred on a handful occasions at the dead of night.
35. The appellant claims to have relocated on numerous occasions. He produced numerous telephone contracts to show that he had been targeted by the Salafists. He explained in his oral hearing that it was the church which set him up with 'safe houses' and yet he was continually tracked by Salafists. The Secretary of State resisted his telephone contract documentation as supporting his claim and argued it was not believable that he would give his own real name, that as an educated person he should have had the technical 'know how' to use skype and further he could have obtained a sim card on the black market. The latter is a somewhat surprising suggestion from the Secretary of State but the appellant explained that in order to obtain a mobile phone anyone needed to provide identity documents for security purposes as the phone company was state owned and a black market sim card is prevented by the insertion of security questions and measures. This I find credible. The appellant also explained that he needed to have a phone because he wanted to contact his parents. That is also credible. It is clear that the appellant is indeed, as can be seen from the doctor's report that he is very attached to his family and that his motivation would appear to be genuine. I am not persuaded that there is a discrepancy between his explanation in his asylum interview, being that he did not dare get another phone and also that he knew after he obtained his visa that shortly he would leave. The appellant also explained that his was given a type of part-time (witness statement [17]) internship at the computer company to enhance his employment and visa prospects rather than a proper job. Indeed the visa applications save for the last referred to the appellant being unemployed. The appellant was moving about and even to use skype would still need to have some form of contract to operate the connection.
36. I accept that the telephone call approaches would be a frightening for the appellant and although the calls in themselves may not indicate real risk of harm the appellant noted that the callers, who insisted on his conversion, identified his whereabouts. This is an appellant who has always been a Coptic Christian, comes from a very religious family whose father has a prominent role in his home church and whose family, against the background material and the specific material of Dr S is likely to have been attacked. I accept the appellant's evidence. The appellant could give consistent and detailed accounts of his faith, general attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt (AIR 53) and the attacks the village had experienced (AIR 55- 59). The appellant was candid about his return as alluded to above. He explained both in his asylum interview q67 and in his oral evidence that 'whenever they know my place we used to just move somewhere else. So I was obliged to go somewhere else, live somewhere else'. He confirmed that this occurred until just before his departure. The appellant specifically explained that those threatening him knew specifically where he lived (AIR 80). He stated that he moved eleven times. (AIR 80). The appellant also explained that it was relatively easy for the Salafists to obtain mobile phone addresses.
37. The appellant was consistent in his asylum interview that his depression occurred after his village had been attacked and his move to Cairo. His description is consistent with the medical reports. I did not find any major inconsistencies in the appellant's account between his interviews, his statements, his oral evidence or indeed that of his uncle. He was consistent with his account that his father and mother were staying in the monastery at Moharra and were old and would not be attacked. This chimed with his earlier statement that the young males were more likely to be attacked. The appellant was also adamant that his father had been unable to return to work as a head teacher after April 2011. The degree of likelihood of persecution needed to establish an entitlement to asylum is decided on a basis lower than the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. This has been expressed as a "reasonable chance", "a serious possibility" or "substantial grounds for thinking" in the various authorities. That basis of probability not only applies to the history of the matter and to the situation at the date of decision, but also to the question of persecution in the future if the appellant were to be returned. I accept that his family had left their place of residence owing to the events that occurred in their vicinity and accept that on the standard of proof which is applicable, the appellant, as a Coptic Christian, may have been targeted by Salafists in his home village and following that outside it.
38. In the light of the medical evidence which all points to the appellant having experienced previous trauma, and even if that were not accepted, that he had severe mental health difficulties which would severely hinder his ability to relocate. I accept, from the evidence of the appellant and the uncle's statement, that the appellant has been unable to remain with his family and would have to establish home alone as a vulnerable person when he had according to his evidence, which I accept, been forced to relocate for two years prior to his arrival in the United Kingdom. It was asserted by the Secretary of State that the anxiety stemmed from a clear desire to be in the United Kingdom. The medical evidence points to the reverse and to the appellant's closeness to his immediate family.
39. This claim must be set against the wealth of background material provided by the appellant of the recurrent attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt. The reports are numerous as to the violence inflicted on Coptic Christians. The Secretary of State in her reasons for refusal letter advances that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the authorities in Egypt would be unable or unwilling to offer protection but the country guidance, which is still good law, itself confirms that there is an inadequacy of protection. At paragraph 87 of the Refusal letter it is recorded that 'in view of the evidence that there is a climate of impunity with regard to crimes against Christians in Egypt' ?'it is accepted that Coptic Christians may reasonably be unwilling or unable to seek protection from the Egyptian authorities'.
40. It was noted in the Refusal letter, however, that the Muslim Brotherhood were no longer in power. As the appellant stated throughout his life he had faced discrimination and abuse in Egypt. That the Muslim brotherhood is no longer in power does not alter the fact, as the appellant explained, that Muslim extremists are active throughout Egypt. The background material contained articles such as 'Egypt's Christians target of Islamist anger in wake of Morsi's ouster' highlighting that 'Egypt's Muslim extremists angry over the ouster of Mohammed Morsi from the presidency have zeroed in on the nation's Christian minority, scapegoating them even though the Islamist leaser was widely unpopular', Fox News 2013. The background material contains articles dated from 2011 almost on a monthly basis showing the violence against Christians in Egypt. The Human Rights Watch Report dated 2015 identified that attacks on churches and properties of Christians continued in 2014 and in many cases authorities failed to intervene. Paragraph 115 of MS identified that in the period when President Morsi was in power from June 2012 to July 2013 there were virtually no incidents of active state persecution' but the 'pattern during this period was one of state complicity in (or state inaction in the face of) non-state actor attacks or actions. The same is true of the period since the ousting of Morsi to the present'.
41. The suggestion was that the appellant relocate to an area outside Egypt but once again the Secretary of State accepted at paragraph 101 of her refusal letter that Coptic Christians face a situation of generalised societal discrimination. I appreciate that this does not necessarily equate with persecution. However, it was advanced that although they are generally able to practice their religion, it was 'noted that there have been many reports of violent incidents against Coptic Christians'. Owing to the background of the appellant, as described above and his fragile mental health and his faith which he would no doubt practise on return I am not persuaded that he is a generally fit and health or that he had worked (outside of the army - though he states he has not worked since his graduation in 2011) and that he would be able to live a relatively normal life, should he relocate without family support to an area suggested outside his home and to which he cannot return. I find that it would be unduly harsh when considering his mental health difficulties and that his family are themselves protected in a monastery to expect him to relocate elsewhere, Januzi [2006] UKHL 5. The appellant was clear, detailed and consistent in his claim that his family has sought protection in a monastery and I accept that he would be unable to join them.
42. I also accept that the appellant's profile may well be raised owing to his father being previously head deacon of the St Mary and St George church in Abokorkas as confirmed by his uncle a specialist NHS doctor in the United Kingdom. MS identified at paragraph 137 that Coptic Christians did not face risk in the large cities but potentially in areas outside them. Although specific risk categories were not defined the panel referred to the evidence of Mr Marshall who identified those working visibly in the community as being at risk. I find the appellant may well have a raised profile by virtue of his father's role both as teacher and as head deacon in the Coptic Church in Abokokas with which the appellant may be associated.
43. Finally, the appellant has explained and I accept that he has tried, within the large city of Cairo, to relocate but unsuccessfully.
44. I therefore allow the appeal on asylum and human rights grounds and under the Immigration Rules.

Signed Date 1st September 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington

TO THE RESPONDENT
FEE AWARD

As I have allowed the appeal and because a fee has been paid or is payable, I have considered making a fee award and have decided to make no fee award because of the late submission of medical reports by the appellant.

Signed Date 1st September 2016

Upper Tribunal Judge Rimington