Citation: 2019 RLLR 174
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 23, 2019
Panel: C. Ruthven
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard P. Eisenberg
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-17225
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-17236, TB7-17256, TB7-17260, TB7-17261
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000536-000549
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 (adult female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (elder minor male claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (younger minor male claimant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor female 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 all three minor claimants.
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claims of the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants are each against Egypt. The claim of the minor female claimant is against the United States of America.
[5] The principal claimant’s full allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim Form and related narrative,3 including its amendments,4 and addendum.5 The adult female claimant and the three minor claimants each rely on the narrative of the principal claimant.
[6] The principal claimant joined the Nour Alhag (Light of Right) Association during his studies at XXXX XXXX XXXX in Cairo. After graduating university in 1991, he continued to oppose the corruption and nepotism that existed under the former regime of Hosni Mubarak. The principal claimant was harassed by the security and intelligence services in Egypt, until he relocated to Saudi Arabia in 1993.
[7] The adult female claimant also attended XXXX XXXX XXXX, where she was a women’s rights activist, especially concerning ending violence against women, ending early marriage, and ending Female Genital Mutilation practices. The adult female claimant was the victim of Female Genital Mutilation, and she fears that physical or psychological trauma might be inflicted on her daughter (the minor female claimant) in places with high Female Genital Mutilation prevalence rates, such as Egypt (including Aswan).
[8] In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the principal claimant participated in the Kifaya (Enough) movement between 2004 and 2010. Upon a return to Egypt in 2007, he was subjected to harsh interrogation from security intelligence, based on his participation with Kifaya in Riyadh.
[9] The adult claimants and the two minor male claimants returned to Egypt in XXXX 2011, where they participated in the Tahrir Square protests against Hosni Mubarak. The claimants returned Saudi Arabia the following month.
[10] The principal claimant joined the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh, after the political party was founded in June 2011. During the election campaign, the claimant promoted the Freedom and Justice Party within the Egypt diaspora community. When President Mohamed Morsi was removed from office by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the adult claimants and the two minor male claimants returned to Egypt in XXXX 2013, to protest the removal of the democratically-elected president, in Cairo’s Rabaa Square.
[11] The principal claimant was arrested and detained between July 7, 2013 and July 9, 2013. During his two-day detention, he was physically mistreated and accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (based on his presence in Rabaa Square). The claimants departed Egypt for Saudi Arabia on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013.
[12] Between XXXX XXXX, 2016 and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the principal claimant returned to Egypt on three occasions, in order to fight the appropriation of fifteen acres of his land, by the government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The principal claimant eventually lost his appropriation appeal. The principal claimant was terminated from his Saudi Arabia employment in March 2017, a few weeks before he lost his land appropriation appeal in Egypt.
[13] The adult claimants made arrangements to visit their elderly parents in Egypt, between XXXX XXXX, 2017 and XXXX XXXX, 2017. After the seven-day visit, the claimants travelled to Canada, and made a claim for protection in September 2017.
[14] Based on the nature of the claim made by the minor female claimant (Female Genital Mutilation), the panel carefully considered the contents of Chairperson ‘s Guideline 4 – Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution,6 both during the hearing and while rendering the decision.
DETERMINATION
[15] The panel finds that the principal claimant and the adult female claimant are both Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on their anti-government political opinion.
[16] The panel finds that the elder minor male claimant and the younger minor male 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 family members of the adult claimants (who face a serious possibility of persecution in Egypt).
[17] Despite the above, the panel finds that minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
ANALYSIS FOR THE MINOR FEMALE CLAIMANT
Identity
[18] The panel finds that the minor female claimant has established her identity as a national of the United States of America, based on a balance of probabilities. The minor female claimant presented a valid passport from the United States of America.7 The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document.
[19] The Basis of Claim Form narrative of the principal claimant referenced the high prevalence rate of Female Genital Mutilation practices in Egypt.8
[20] Despite this, the panel notes that there was no narrative mention of any alleged risks of harm to the minor female claimant in the United States of America (including Female Genital Mutilation).
[21] At the hearing, the principal claimant testified that his daughter (the minor female claimant) does not face a risk of harm in the United States of America. Similarly, the adult female claimant testified that her daughter (the minor female claimant) does not face a risk of harm in the United States of America.
[22] The panel carefully considered the contents of the Basis of Claim Form for the minor female claimant,9 as well as the Basis of Claim Form or narrative of each of her family members,10 the written submissions of the five claimants, and the testimony of the two adult claimants. The panel finds that no claim against the United States of America was forwarded on behalf of the minor female claimant.
[23] As such, the panel finds that the minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as the minor female claimant does not face a serious possibility of persecution in the United States of America, and because her removal to that country would not subject her personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to her life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture.
[24] The claim of the minor female claimant therefore fails.
ANALYSIS FOR THE THREE MALE CLAIMANTS AND THE ADULT FEMALE CLAIMANT
Identity
[25] The panel finds that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants have each established their identity as nationals of Egypt, based on a balance of probabilities. They each presented their valid Arab Republic of Egypt passports.11 The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these four documents.
Credibility
[26] The panel finds that the principal claimant and the adult female claimant each testified in a straightforward and consistent manner, without the use of embellishments or contradictions.
[27] The panel finds that the principal claimant was able to coherently describe in his testimony his opinions about the former regime of Hosni Mubarak,12 and how those opinion began to form when he entered university in 1987. He further testified about his affiliation with the Nour Alhag in university, including how he wrote articles that were published in The Wall journal. The panel also finds that the principal claimant was able to clearly articulate his ex-patriot involvement during his residency in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, after he departed Egypt in 1993.
[28] In contrast, the adult female claimant testified that she was not politically involved in Egypt.
Corroborating Documents
[29] To corroborate his opposition to the al-Sisi regime in Egypt, the principal claimant presented an August 20, 2017 letter of support signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,13 an August 5, 2017 letter of support14 and a September 15, 2017 letter of support15 (each signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX), a March 26, 2019 letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,16 an undated letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,17 as well as three protest photographs and a social media post.18
Profiles of the Adult Female Claimant and the Minor Male Claimants
[30] The adult female claimant testified that she and her two sons would be arrested in Egypt, simply because her husband is a member of the Freedom and Justice Party. She further testified that her husband’s opposition to the current president of Egypt would lead to physical mistreatment (in custody) for the minor male claimants.
[31] The principal claimant testified that his family all participated in demonstrations during their time in Canada. The protest rallies took place on February 22, 2019 and March 16, 2019.19
[32] 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. Those subjected to enforced disappearances by the National Security Agency were perceived supporters of Mohamed Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood. 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.20
[33] Based on the above considerations, that panel finds that the country condition evidence points to the authorities in Egypt having some interest in the adult female claimant and the two minor male claimants, based on their political opinion against the president of Egypt.
Subjective Fear Considerations
No Claim for Asylum in the United States of America
[34] Some of the presented written evidence pointed to actions of the claimants, particularly the adult claimants, which did not seem to match the expected actions of a person who alleges fear of a return to their country of citizenship. All of the panel’s concerns were put to at least one of the adult claimants at the hearing.
[35] The panel notes that the adult claimants and the minor male claimants did not make a claim for asylum in the United States of America, despite having opportunities to do so after the arrest of the principal claimant in July 2013.
[36] According to an entry stamp in his presented Egypt passport, the principal claimant was granted entry into the United States of America on XXXX XXXX, 2016.21 The principal claimant testified that his visits to the United States of America were both for business and pleasure, and that his wife had accompanied him on the trips for business purposes. The adult female claimant confirmed in her own testimony that she never resided in a different country from the principal claimant since they were married.
[37] When the lack of a claim for asylum in the United States of America was put to the adult female claimant at the hearing, she testified that she and her husband regarded their lifestyle in Saudi Arabia to be affluent, that the principal claimant occupied a prestigious post for his employment, and that Saudi Arabia was relatively safe for them.
[38] The claimants presented the Saudi Arabia employment termination letter for the principal claimant. It confirmed that he was informed of the termination on February 9, 2017,22 subsequent to the last known entry of the claimants into the United States of America. The panel accepts the explanations provided within the testimony of the adult female claimant regarding their lack of claims for protection in the United States of America. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference.
Decision to Return to Egypt in XXXX 2017
[39] The panel put to the principal claimant that all members of his family had visas to enter the United States of America, or in the case of the minor female claimant citizenship in the United States of America, when they departed Saudi Arabia for Egypt on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The panel would have expected persons fearful of a return to Egypt to have taken the opportunity to travel to the United States of America, as an alternative to returning to a risk of harm in Egypt.
[40] The principal claimant testified that he simply wanted an opportunity to visit his family on one more occasion, as he feared that he would never see them again.
[41] The claimants presented a September 15, 2017 letter signed by a member of the expatriate directorate of the Freedom and Justice Party in Cairo.23 XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed that the principal claimant had been in contact with him in the two months leading up to his final trip to Egypt, and that XXXX XXXX XXXX assisted the claimants to return temporarily to Egypt for the purpose of a farewell to his ailing parents.
[42] The panel accepts the principal claimant’s explanation in his testimony about the reasons for his visit to Egypt between XXXX XXXX, 2017 and XXXX XXXX, 2017. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference.
Objective Basis of the Claims
[43] The overall objective evidence supports the claims for Convention refugee protection put forth by the principal claimant and the adult female claimant, based on their anti-government political opinion.
Political Opposition in Egypt
[44] 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.24 Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment.25
[45] There were reports of physical assaults on members of political opposition movements.26 Arrests, harsh prison terms, death sentences, and extrajudicial violence targeting the political opposition have been common in recent years.27
[46] Former president Mohamed Morsi was a leading Muslim Brotherhood member before his election in June 2012.28 The Freedom and Justice Party is as such considered the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.29 In August 2014, the administrative court system in Egypt revoked the license of the Freedom and Justice Party, and mandated its dissolution.30
[47] The Freedom and Justice Party remains banned in Egypt. Authorities have not banned other Islamist parties.31
Interest of the Authorities in the Two Adult Claimants
[48] The panel carefully considered the testimony and the written evidence related to the adult claimant’s promotion of the Freedom and Justice Party in Saudi Arabia, as well as his involvement in the Rabaa Square protests. The claimant presented Basis of Claim Form narrative statements which indicated that he promoted the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh after it was founded in June 2011, until the June 2012 elections.32
[49] The two presented letters of support signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX33 indicate that the principal claimant was an active member of the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh, and that his duties included creating a wide front with the goal of ending the regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, along with marketing slogans of the Freedom and Justice Party.
[50] In regards to participation in Egypt, the claimant presented narrative statements which indicated that he and his family returned to Egypt in July 2013 to participate in the Rabaa Square protests. Immediately after his July 9, 2013 release from detention, the principal claimant evacuated his family from Rabaa Square, as instructed by his release conditions.34
[51] The panel elicited testimony from the principal claimant related to his July 7, 2013 arrest, and subsequent two-day detention, in Cairo. The principal claimant testified that he was subjected to physical assaults in custody, and that he was asked if he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The principal claimant testified that the authorities were trying to make the connection based on is political history file,35 as well as his attendance at the Rabaa Square protests. The claimant was released after two days, under the sole condition that he remove himself (and his family) from the Rabaa Square protests.
[52] 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 Egypt.36
[53] The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the actions of the principal claimant and the adult female claimant, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Canada have drawn the attention of the authorities in Egypt. This is in consideration of the evidence of their public support for the opposition to government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
[54] As such, the panel finds that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants have each established a well-founded fear of returning to Egypt.
State Protection for the Adult Claimants and the Minor Male Claimants
[55] The two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants each fear the authorities of Egypt.
Risk of Harm from the Authorities
[56] President al-Sisi’s government maintained its zero-tolerance policy towards dissent, introducing repressive legislation, notably a Non-Governmental Organization law that may end independent associations, reinstating a state of emergency and continuing near-absolute impunity for abuses by security forces under the pretext of fighting terrorism.37
[57] Protesters have been subjected to various kinds of state-sponsored violence in Egypt, including long provisional detention.38 The Interior Ministry’s regular police and its National Security Agency have used widespread arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture against perceived dissidents.39
[58] The panel finds it unreasonable to expect either adult claimant or either minor male claimant to seek redress or protection from the police or any other authorities in Egypt. The panel finds that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming for the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, or the two minor male claimants, in their respective particular set of circumstances.
[59] For clarification, the panel finds that the authorities would on a balance of probabilities, be the primary agents of persecution for the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants. The panel finds that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing, and that it rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection for the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants in Egypt.
Internal Flight Alternatives for the Adult Claimants and the Minor Male Claimants
[60] The state, and its National Security Agency, have national reach.
[61] 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 two adult claimants or the two minor male claimants in any place in Egypt, as the state and its National Security Agency are their agents of persecution.
[62] The panel finds that the two adult claimants and the two minor male 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
[63] The panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants each face persecution in Egypt. The panel concludes that they are each Convention refugees, based on their anti-government political opinion, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[64] The panel therefore accepts the claims of the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants.
[65] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as the minor female claimant does not face a serious possibility of persecution, and because her removal to her country of citizenship would not subject her personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to her life, to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture.
[66] The claim for protection made by the minor female claimant therefore fails.
(signed) C. RUTHVEN
July 23, 2019
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, Exhibit 19, and Exhibit 20.
5 Exhibit 19.
6 Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996.
7 Exhibit 1.
8 Exhibit 2.
9 Exhibit 3.
10 Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 19, and Exhibit 20.
11 Exhibit 1.
12 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.3, item 1.6, item 1.8, item 2.4, item 2.5, item 2.6, item 3.9, item 4.2, item 4.3, item 4.5, item 4.7, item 4.8, item 5.6, item 5.7, item 7.4, item 7.6, item 9.3, item 9.6, item 9.7, item 10.1, item 11.2, and item 12.2.
13 Exhibit 10.
14 Exhibit 10.
15 Exhibit 12.
16 Exhibit 17.
17 Exhibit 17.
18 Exhibit 16.
19 Exhibit 19.
20 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.5.
21 Exhibit l.
22 Exhibit 10.
23 Exhibit 12.
24 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.8.
25 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5 and item 2.4.
26 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.1.
27 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.4.
28 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.8
29 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5, item 1.6, item 1.8, item 2.1, item 2.4, item 2.5, item 4.5, item 4.6, item 4.7, item 4.9, item 5.6, item 9.3, item 9.7, and item 10.1.
30 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.3 and item 4.8.
31 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5 and item 2.1.
32 Exhibit 2.
33 Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 12.
34 Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 19.
35 Exhibit 19.
36 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 7.1.
37 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.3.
38 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.8.
39 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 10.1.