Citation: 2020 RLLR 175
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 7, 2020
Panel: C. Ruthven
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amro Hayek
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-18214
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-18276, TB8-18298, TB8-18299, TB8-18300
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000638-000648
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] These reasons and decision are in regards to the claims for protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (elder female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (younger female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (elder minor claimant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (younger minor claimant).
[2] Each is claiming protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.1 The panel heard the claims jointly, pursuant to Refugee Protection Division Rule 55.2
[3] The principal claimant was the designated representative for the two minor claimants.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] All five claimant are against Egypt. The principal claimant’s full allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim Form and its related narrative,3 including its addendum.4 The two adult female claimants and the two minor claimants each rely on the narrative of the principal claimant.
[5] The nephew of the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was arrested by the security forces of Egypt on December 14, 2015. On September 6, 2016, the principal claimant’s nephew was subsequently convicted of an affiliation with a terrorist organization, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment.
[6] On May 15, 2017, the principal claimant and his sister, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, visited prisoner XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Assiut province. The principal claimant and his sister travelled on a lengthy train trip from Cairo to Assiut province. The principal claimant was waiting in the visitor’s hall of the prison, when a security officer directed him and other selected men to an interrogation room. These segregated men complied with requests to answer enhanced security questions, but the principal claimant began to challenge the nature of the questions, in the context of the men being simply visitors to the prison.
[7] The other male visitors were dismissed from the segregated room, but the principal claimant was asked by the security officer about his associations with ISIS (full name variations include Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham,5 and Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).6 The principal claimant was also asked about his personal knowledge of opposition leaders, as well as the reasons that he recently visited Turkey. After these additional questions were answered, the security officer threatened the claimant by telling him that they would not leave him alone.
[8] On July 18, 2017, the principal claimant was arrested by security forces, outside his workplace. He was isolated in a dark room for five days, and he was physically assaulted and psychologically traumatized. During this detention, the principal claimant was accused of being a member of banned political organizations. Eight days after his release from his first period of detention, the principal claimant was told that he was terminated from his employment, but that his employer would allow him to finish some company projects from home.
[9] The principal claimant was detained by security forces on a second occasion, between January 23, 2018 and January 26, 2018. The interrogation topics centred around the places that the principal claimant attended in the week prior to his arrest. The principal claimant was arrested for a third time on May 13, 2018. He was interrogated for three days, before being released a far distance away, two hours from his residence by car.
[10] The claimants departed Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and entered Canada on the same date. After his departure, the principal claimant was told by an acquaintance that he was wanted for arrest again, related to national security surrounding the annual anniversary celebrations of the June 30th Revolution.
[11] The claimants made their claims for protection the following month. An arrest warrant was subsequently issued for the principal claimant on September 26, 2018.
DETERMINATION
[12] The panel finds that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on his imputed anti-government political opinion.
[13] In addition, the panel finds that the elder female claimant, the younger female claimant, and both minor claimants are each Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on their membership in a particular social group, namely as family members of the principal claimant (who faces a serious possibility of persecution in Egypt).
ANALYSIS
Identity
[14] The panel finds that all five claimants have established their identity as nationals of Egypt, based on a balance of probabilities. All five claimants presented their valid Arab Republic of Egypt passports.7 The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these five documents.
Credibility
[15] The panel finds that all three adult claimants testified in a straightforward and consistent manner, without the use of embellishments or contradictions.
[16] The panel finds that the principal claimant was able to coherently describe in his testimony the events that took place on May 15, 2017, at the prison in Assiut province. In regards to a forward-looking assessment of risk for the principal claimant, the panel considered the combination of this May 15, 2017 prison visit (to see a family member convicted of terrorism association eight months prior), in conjunction with the overt engagement of the principal claimant with the authorities on the same date, all in the presence of unrelated prison visitors.
[17] The panel also finds that the principal claimant was able to clearly articulate his physical and psychological treatment during the three subsequent detentions by security forces in Egypt, between the period of July 18, 2017 and May 16, 2018. These details added to the probative value of the principal claimant’s testimony.
Subjective Fear Considerations
[18] The panel considered the time period that elapsed between the release of the principal claimant on January 26, 2018 (after his second arrest) and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 (the departure date of the claimants from Egypt). The panel elicited testimony from the principal claimant regarding this period of four months, which immediately followed his second period of detention. The principal claimant testified that his second arrest was one of many arrests in the country at the time, and that he did not tell his family about his problems when he relocated to the residence of his mother-in-law for Ramadan observance.
[19] In consideration of the totality of the circumstances facing the principal claimant, the panel accepts the explanations provided within his testimony regarding the time he spent in Egypt before his departure from his country of citizenship. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference related to the actions of the principal claimant during this period of time.
Corroborating Documents
[20] In support of all five claims, the claimants presented the National Security officer’s December 14, 2015 summary,8 the September 6, 2016 criminal court documents (related to the conviction of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX),9 and the September 26, 2018 Cairn Security Directorate arrest warrant for the principal claimant.10 In addition to these documents sourced to the authorities of Egypt, the claimants also presented a December 6, 2019 letter of support which was signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.11
[21] Based on the above considerations, that panel finds that the evidence sourced to the authorities of Egypt pointed to the security apparatus having interest in the principal claimant, and by extension the two female claimants and the two minor claimants, based on their close family association with the principal claimant (his wife, his adult daughter, and his minor sons).
[22] The objective country condition evidence supports that the security forces of Egypt would be interested in the family members of the principal claimant, as their treatment of the principal claimant himself (during his three detentions) indicate that the security forces perceive the principal claimant to be active in at least one of the banned political organizations in Egypt, or a government critic, or both.
Objective Basis of the Claims
[23] The overall objective evidence supports the respective claims for Convention refugee protection which were put forth by the principal claimant, the elder female claimant, the younger female claimant, and the two minor claimants, based on the imputed anti-government political opinion of the principal claimant.
Treatment of Those Who Are Perceived to be Political Opposition
[24] Amnesty International reports that there is a pattern of abuse by state agents in Egypt that became particularly evident since March 2015. The abuse includes arbitrary arrests, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances. The victims were mostly males, ranging in age from fourteen-year-old boys to adult men in their fifties, and included students, academics and other activists, peaceful critics and protesters, and family members of government critics.12
[25] The panel considered this country condition evidence in the context of the principal claimant being a perceived government critic, especially due to the events in Assiut province on May 15, 2017.
[26] The passing of the Protest Law in November 2013 has severely restricted the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against the state. The Protest Law was introduced amid a tense political environment characterised by recurrent protests.13 Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment.14
[27] There were reports of physical assaults on members of political opposition movements.15 The government of Egypt makes it nearly impossible for the opposition to gain power through elections. In practice, there are no political parties that offer meaningful opposition to the ruling party. Arrests, harsh prison terms, death sentences, extrajudicial violence, and various forms of pressure targeting activists, parties, and political movements that criticize the government were common.16
[28] The panel notes that peaceful demonstrators and bystanders may be subject to questioning, detention, arrest, and conviction for participating in or being in proximity to unauthorized demonstrations in the two largest cities of Egypt, Cairo and Alexandria.17
[29] The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the actions of the principal claimant in Egypt have drawn the attention of the authorities. Since the country condition evidence also establishes that family members of those perceived to be anti-government are also targeted in Egypt, the panel finds that the principal claimant, the elder female claimant, the younger female claimant, and the two minor claimants have each established a well-founded fear of returning to Egypt.
State Protection
[30] All five claimants fear the authorities and security apparatus of Egypt.
Risk of Harm from the Authorities
[31] The National Security Agency continued to operate with near-absolute impunity. Security forces in Egypt have escalated a campaign of intimidation, violence, and arrests against political opponents, civil society activists, and many others who have simply voiced mild criticism of the government.18
[32] Protesters have been subjected to various kinds of state-sponsored violence in Egypt, including long provisional detention.19
[33] The Interior Ministry’s regular police and its National Security Agency have used widespread arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture against perceived dissidents. Former detainees in Egypt indicated that their arrests typically took place with a dawn raid on their home, or a targeted arrest from the street near a place they were known to frequent, such as their home, university, or place of work. In none of the documented cases did police or National Security officers show suspects a warrant, or tell them why they were being arrested. In some cases, they arrested family members at the same time. Three former detainees told Human Rights Watch that security officers threatened to torture their family members if they did not confess.20
[34] Based on this evidence of arbitrary arrest of family members, as well as multiple threats made towards family members of detainees, the panel finds it unreasonable to expect any of the three adult claimants or the two minor claimants to seek redress or protection from the police or from any other authorities in Egypt. The panel finds that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming for any of the five claimants, in their respective particular set of circumstances.
[35] For clarification, the panel finds that the authorities would on a balance of probabilities, be the primary agents of persecution for the principal claimant, and by extension the two female claimants, and the two minor claimants. The panel finds that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing, and that it rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection for all five claimants in Egypt.
Internal Flight Alternatives
[36] The state, and its National Security Agency, have national reach.
[37] As a result of the above-referenced country condition documentation from the National Documentation Package, the panel finds that a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for the five claimants in any place in Egypt, as the state and its National Security Agency are their agents of persecution.
[38] The panel finds that the five claimants each have a well-founded fear of persecution throughout Egypt, and that there is no viable internal flight alternative for any of them.
CONCLUSION
[39] The panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the principal claimant, the two female claimants, and the two minor claimants each face persecution in Egypt. The panel concludes that they are each Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[40] The panel therefore accepts all five claims.
(signed) C. RUTHVEN
February 7, 2020
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.
3 Exhibit 2.
4 Exhibit 13.
5 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.3.
6 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 9.5 and item 12.6.
7 Exhibit 1.
8 Exhibit 14.
9 Exhibit 14.
10 Exhibit 13.
11 Exhibit 13.
12 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.6 and item 4.5.
13 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September2019), item 1.4.
14 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.5, item 2.4, and item 2.9.
15 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 2.1.
16 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 2.4.
17 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.3, item 7.1, and item 7.5.
18 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 2.3.
19 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 4.8.
20 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 10.1.