Citation: 2019 RLLR 163
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mayoori Malankov
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-25293
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000246-000252
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the claimant), who is a citizen of Egypt, is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
EXPEDITED PROCESS
[2] Paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA provides that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, unless the Minister has notified the RPD of the Minister’s intention to intervene within the time limit set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules.1 Further, subsection 162(2) of the IRPA directs each division to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit. The claimant’s claim was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed certificate of readiness for the expedited process on September 21, 2018.2 Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that XXXX XXXX XXXX claim meets the criteria for the expedited determination. This claim has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.3
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant is a XXXX XXXX XXXX, who was perceived to be a supporter or member of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, he alleges that he has solely represented clients accused of being members, but by association the government believes he is a supporter or member himself.
[4] In 2014, he began representing these clients, and in August 2016, there were judgments acquitting his clients, whereupon he began receiving texts warning him to stay away from representing these clients.
[5] In 2015, the claimant was one of the XXXX involved in the mass trials and prosecution of alleged members and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. This series of cases became a matter of public interest because several of the accused were young, and the stakes were high – some of these charges are punishable by execution. The claimant defended two young men in these afore mentioned cases.
[6] In XXXX 2017, the claimant went to Turkey for vacation but returned as he did not have any fears at that time. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the claimant came to Canada to assist a client in Canada, who had property issues in Egypt. While in Canada, he learned that his client’s father had been arrested in Egypt. In July 2017, a second judgment came down acquitting his two clients of most of the charges. Around Mid-August 2017, five armed officers came to the claimant’s home in pursuit of him and looking for documents. They forcibly entered their home and one of them tried to hit his wife in the head with his gun, but it landed on her shoulder. The officers told the claimant’s wife that her husband would be arrested.
[7] In August/September 2017, authorities searched his office in Egypt. His colleague was arrested. In October 2017, the sister of one of his clients was arrested. On December 05, 2017, the claimant received numerous documents from Egypt to support his claim.
[8] In October, the claimant learned that he was named as one of the lawyers that was being investigated for assisting cadres of the Brotherhood, and he also learned that a number of other lawyers working on the foregoing cases had been arrested.
DETERMINATION
[9] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[10] The claimant’s identity has been established as per a copy of his passport, his National ID Card, and his birth and marriage certificates.
Credibility
[11] The claimant has submitted copious corroborative evidence to support his claim. This documentation includes proof of his legal profession as well as his representation of the clients mentioned in his BOC. The supportive evidence also includes the court judgments which favoured the claimant’s clients, minutes of investigations, court orders and lists of individuals indicated in the claimant’s BOC, who are detained. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the aforementioned documents and find that the claimant has provided credible evidence that he was a professional XXXX representing Muslim clients, and as a result, he is perceived to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself.
Prospective Risk of Return to Egypt
[12] The claimant fears persecution if he returns to his country of nationality, Egypt, because of his political opinions. As explained above, he has been accused of being affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and as such, he is considered a political opponent by the current Egyptian regime.
[13] The panel finds that the claimant has established a link between his situation and a Convention ground, that is, his political opinions, whether real or imputed.
[14] In evaluating the claimant’s prospective risk of return, the panel has taken into consideration the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation at this time.
[15] As explained above, the claimant is a XXXX who has represented clients who have been in the public eye. He has submitted evidence regarding his public personality, his public expressions of his political opinions, and particularly evidence regarding the political nature of his profession. Notably, he has been named by the Egyptian authorities on a list of persons who are accused of being members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
[16] The panel has also taken into consideration the evidence regarding the current situation in Egypt, particularly concerning those perceived as being political opponents to the regime.4
[17] According to the objective evidence, the Egyptian authorities are known for their repression of freedom of expression and association, notably repression of those who are considered political opponents.5 The U.S. Department of State reports:6
The most significant human rights issues included arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; major terrorist attacks; disappearances; torture; harsh or potentially life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; including the use of military courts to try civilians; political prisoners and detainees; unlawful interference in privacy; limits on freedom of expression, including criminal “defamation of religion” laws; restrictions on the press, internet, and academic freedom; and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and association, including government control over registration and financing of NGOs.
[18] According to the objective evidence on file, there are numerous reports that the Egyptian forces have used excessive force against activists and opponents, particularly during the demonstrations in 2011 and in 2013. A new wave of arrests began in May 2015. Sources indicate that thousands of people who are perceived as opponents to the current government have been detained for extended periods of time, which, in many cases, could be considered enforced disappearances.7
[19] There are also recent reports that indicate that members of the Egyptian military have committed acts that may amount to human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. The objective evidence on file indicates that family members of perceived opponents were also subjected to these treatments. Finally, reports also indicate that there were problems with impunity for officials who committed abuses and unfairness in the judicial system.8
[20] The panel notes that in this particular case, according to the allegations, which have been deemed credible, the claimant has been accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In consideration of the entirety of the evidence, including the claimant’s public personal profile and his particular situation, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the panel accepts that the claimant may be perceived as a political opponent upon returning to Egypt.
[21] For all of the reasons explained above, considering the treatment of real or perceived political opponents and dissenters by the Egyptian authorities, as well as the treatment of their family members, the panel concludes that there is a serious possibility that the claimant may face persecution based on a Convention ground, that being his real or perceived political opinion, upon return to his country of nationality, Egypt.
State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative
[22] Case law establishes a presumption that a state is capable of providing adequate protection to its citizens. In order to rebut this presumption, claimants must demonstrate, through clear and convincing evidence, that the authorities are not able or willing to provide them adequate protection given the alleged risks. Claimants must establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution throughout their country of nationality.
[23] As explained above, the panel has taken into consideration the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation at the present time. Of note, the panel has taken into consideration that the claimant fears the Egyptian authorities. The panel has also taken into consideration that the claimant has been accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood by the Egyptian authorities, allegation which he affirms is false, and that the authorities have been actively seeking him.
[24] As explained above, the panel has taken into consideration the objective evidence regarding the situation in Egypt, particularly regarding the treatment of political opponents and those who are perceived as such. Regarding those considered opponents and dissenters, it is reported:
The authorities used prolonged pre-trial detention, often for periods of more than two years, as means to punish dissidents.9
According to the Report of the OHCHR Mission to Egypt in 2011: In addition, strikes, unregistered financial donations were formally banned, and thousands of opponents were arbitrarily detained and allegedly tortured. In fact, the Emergency Law gave the Government the right to detain individuals indefinitely, without any judicial safeguards. 10
… under repeated international criticism for an ongoing government crackdown against various forms of political dissent and freedom of expression. Certain practices of Sisi’s government, the parliament and the security apparatus have been contentious including … police brutality, the apparently deliberate use of torture by security forces, and reported enforced disappearances of political opponents.11
[25] As indicated above, there are reports of impunity for officials who committed abuses.
[26] Upon consideration of the entirety of the evidence, the panel finds that the treatment of political opponents and dissidents, orthose perceived as such, is not limited to any regions in Egypt, but is widespread. The panel notes that the laws currently used to repress political opponents are national laws, and may be applied throughout Egypt.
[27] Therefore, for all of the reasons explained above, and in consideration of the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation, as well as the current conditions in Egypt, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection is not adequate for the claimant if he were to return to his home country at this time. The panel concludes that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in these particular circumstances.
[28] Considering his personal profile and current situation, as well as the objective documentation, as noted above, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant throughout his country at this time. Therefore, a viable internal flight alternative is currently not available for the claimant within Egypt.
CONCLUSION
[29] Therefore, his claim for refugee protection is accepted on the basis of his perceived political opinion.
(signed) ROSLYN AHARA
March 1, 2019
1 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.
2 Exhibit 4.
3 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.
4 Exhibit 3, National Documentat
ion Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), items 2.1 and 4.5
5 Ibid., items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.
6 Ibid., item 2.1.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 10.l.
9 Ibid., item 2.2.
10 Ibid., item 2.6.
11 Ibid., item 4.7.