2024 RLLR 87
Citation: 2024 RLLR 87
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 13, 2024
Panel: Michal Fox
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ade Ogedengbe
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VC1-06426
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2025-00362
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: So, the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Egypt claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. At the hearing, the claimant’s daughter was appointed a designated representative. At the first sitting, December 11, 2023, the designated representative was the claimant’s granddaughter, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. At the second sitting, today, March 13, 2024. The claimant’s daughter, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, was appointed the designated representative. The claimant was also found to be a vulnerable person by the Board on January 11th, 2023.
Basis of Claim Form Allegations
[2] The allegations, in full, are contained in the Basis of Claim form found in Exhibit 2. Herein is a summary of the allegations. The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a female citizen of Egypt, born on XXXX XXXX, 1947. She is presently 76 years of age. The claimant fears returning to Egypt because she is perceived to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, because she comes from a military family, because she is perceived to be a religious person, because she lives alone as a widowed woman, and because of her numerous severe health conditions, which include chronic pain, being XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and so forth.
DETERMINATION
[3] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee, and that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in Egypt by reason of her being a member of a particular social group, fearing gender persecution and physical –with physical disabilities and age, and also an imputed political opinion, and also religion.
ANALYSIS
[4] Chairperson’s Guideline 4, gender considerations in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board, and Chairperson’s Guideline 8, accessibility to IRB proceedings, procedural accommodations and substantive considerations were — have been applied at this hearing and in rendering of the decision.
Identity
[5] The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt is established by her testimony and the testimony of the two (2) other witnesses, the designated representative in this case, and supporting documentation filed, namely, the claimant’s passport found in Exhibit 1.
Credibility
[6] A claimant must present clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to credibly establish the facts of her claim. On a balance of probabilities, sworn testimony is presumed to be true unless there are valid reasons to doubt its truthfulness. I found the claimant’s evidence to be credible on a balance of probabilities. At the two (2) hearings, the claimant and the — her — and the two (2) designated representatives testified. Their evidence was generally consistent, and where there were some inconsistencies, their clarifications were found to be reasonable. In addition, the claimant provided corroborative evidence in Exhibit 7.
Well-Founded Fear of Harm
[7] A well-founded fear of harm has a subjective and objective aspect to it. Both aspects of fear must be satisfied.
Subjective Fear of Harm
[8] I find the claimant has evinced a subjective fear of harm. The claimant moved to another part of Egypt to avoid persecution, but the conditions were the same or worse in the new location. It is true that the claimant came to Canada, and then re-availed back to Egypt in 2015. The conditions, however, for her in Egypt at that time, were not as severe as they are today. When the claimant returned to Egypt at that earlier time, she was able to live with her son. He was able to take care of his mother, wherein the claimant could avoid the consequences of living alone, as described below. At a later point, the claimant’s son married and stopped living with his mother. At that point, and with the murder of the claimant’s neighbour, who assisted the claimant in obtaining her daily needs, the claimant’s situation became precarious. The claimant then left for Canada and sought protection. I thus find that the claimant has evinced a subjective fear of harm.
Well-Founded Fear of Harm
[9] I find the claimant’s fear to be well-founded. As Chairperson Guideline 8, at section 6, intersectionality indicates the claimant, in this case, has multiple identity factors such as her gender, disability, religion, political opinion, and age that together, establish that she has a well-founded fear of harm if she were to return to Egypt. I will be discussing below different aspects of the claimant’s well-founded fear, which together, establish her well-founded fear of harm.
[10] The situation of her being from a female-headed household, section — or Tab 3.89 and 5.8 of the NDP. The DFAT report assessed that the majority of Egyptian women, regardless of their religion or socioeconomic status face societal discrimination, and that majority of Egyptian women face a higher risk of gender-based violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. Section 5.8 states that female-headed households, including widows, like the claimant, are considered a specially vulnerable group in Egypt. Additionally, section 3.1 supports the claimant’s allegation that gender-based violence is rampant in Egypt, and that the situation for women living alone, like the claimant does in Egypt, without male family members is an impossible situation.
[11] Tab 1.4 of the NDP states that rape, sexual harassment, other forms of sexual and gender-based violence are all highly prevalent in Egypt, and that in Cairo, where the claimant hails from, is the world’s most dangerous megacity for women. See also Tab 5.6 of the NDP. Sexual harassment is also frequently common across all socioeconomic spectrums. One (1) study found that 99.3 percent of Egyptian women have experienced sexual harassment, while 91.5 percent have reported experiencing unwanted physical contact. This is the claimant’s evidence, as well. See also Tab 2.3, which is a world report for 2023.
[12] The claimant faces even — a greater risk of sexual exploitation because of her many physical disabilities, which impact her ability to flee and protect herself. Her disabilities include XXXX XXXX, XXXX, being XXXX XXXX XXXX, having XXXX, quite limited ability to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. See the claimant’s Exhibit 7, which is a letter from her physician outlining her disabilities. The claimant provided evidence that her best friend and neighbour who also lived alone, next door, was murdered in her home.
[13] The claimant, moreover, faces an additional heightened reason for sexual assault because she is a religious woman who dresses in a way that points out to the world that she is a religious woman. She wears a khirmar, K-H-I-R-M-A-R (sic). This is an Egyptian head covering that is specific to the religious women in Egypt. There are many in Egypt who oppose the deeply religious and their — because they are seen to be aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the enemy of the state.
[14] In 2013, armed forces led by Al-Sisi, A-L-S-I-S-I, overthrew the elected president Mohammed Morsi, M-O-R-S-I, of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party. See Tab 4.5 of the NDP. Since this 2013 coup, Egypt has been under the ruling of Al-Sisi and described as an authoritarian regime. See Tab 2.4 of the NDP.
[15] Objective evidence in the National Documentation Package points to the persecutory treatment of those perceived or suspected to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. See Tab 4.5 and 2.4 of the NDP. This includes women who wear the khirmar and who pray five (5) times a day, as the claimant does. This is because these religious actions demonstrate an overt expression of their religious beliefs, and as Muslim Brotherhood supporters. In fact, the claimant’s family are Muslim Brotherhood. This is the evidence in this case. As such, the claimant is known in her community of Cairo to be against the government of Al-Sisi.
[16] This mere expression of the family’s alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood and appearance in wearing the khirmar gives them an imputed political opinion and religion to be enemies of the state, increases the risk of harm by the state, including sexual exploitation. The claimant presented evidence that her own daughter, who remains in Egypt was harassed in the street wearing her khirmar. The person who attacked her was — physically tried to remove the khirmar, and then robbed her. Let me just get some water. I will be right back.
[17] INTERPRETER: Yes, ma’am. Thank you.
[18] CLAIMANT: Thank you so much for you. You did good job.
[19] INTERPRETER: Yeah, we can talk later. This is recorded. Perhaps we could take a break if needed, Madam.
[20] MEMBER: No. That is okay. As the claimant’s daughter testified today, this step of trying to yank off her sister’s khirmar is a sexual assault, as religious women do not reveal their hair. Additionally, the claimant faces a well-founded fear of harm in conjunction with other reasons, as a member of a military family. Many members of the claimant’s family, including her husband, her male sons, her son-in-laws, nephews, and grandchildren are or were members of the military. Many in Egypt have anger and — against military families as they are considered wealthy, while the vast majority of Egyptians live in utter poverty. Several members in the last few years of the claimant’s family were killed or harmed in hit-and-run accidents because they are members of the military, or their male relatives are. The claimant’s daughter testified today, people know who you are in Egypt and thus, these hit-and-run accidents are no accident at all, but are intentional killings of family members who are associated with the military. For all these reasons, cumulatively, I find the claimant faces a well-founded fear of harm.
State Protection
[21] Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens. The onus is on claimants to rebut this presumption through clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect its citizens. I find, in this case, that the claimant has adduced clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities, that the state would be unwilling or unable to provide her with adequate protection. At Tab 2.1 of the NDP, it states that although the law criminalizes rape, there is no follow-through by the state. Police pressure rape and domestic violence survivors not to pursue charges, and the police itself is quite corrupt, where it takes money to file a case, and people can buy themselves out of the criminal process itself. See Tabs 14.2 the NDP. Tab 5.1of the NDP indicates, as well, that the professionalism of the police varies, and that the police are reportedly reluctant to investigate cases of violence against women.
[22] Further, the claimant also fears persecution at the hands of Egyptian authorities, and because of her — because — as a family of the Muslim Brotherhood, they are perceived enemies of the state. Where the agent of persecution is the state, state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming. I find for — on a balance of probabilities that the claimant would not be able to obtain state protection for all these reasons, and that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.
Internal Flight Alternative
[23] I also consider whether there is a viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant. The test for a viable internal flight alternative is two (2) pronged. There must be no serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted in that part of the country to where the IFA, the internal flight alternative, exist. Second, the conditions in that part of the country where — which is the IFA, must not be objectively reasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to not seek refuge there. In this case, the intersectionality of her issues makes it impossible in any location to be reasonable under the second prong.
[24] See Chairperson’s Guideline 8. Chairperson’s Guideline 8 provides that we must consider, also, their physical health, including age, which can affect the reasonableness of an IFA. The claimant’s age, and with her physical disabilities, she cannot take care of herself. This includes not only her — to take care of her medical needs, but all of her needs, whether it is purchasing food, even feeding herself. She cannot do so alone in Cairo, and she cannot do so in any internal flight alternative. She has no one (1) to take care of her in any location and does not have the economic means to bring in help to assist her. To outline her conditions again, she has XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, she is XXXX XXXX XXXX, she has XXXX, has XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. I thus find, with all of these physical conditions and her age, that it would be unreasonable for the claimant to go to any internal flight alternative, and it fails on the second prong.
CONCLUSION
[25] For the aforementioned reasons, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee as per section 96 of the Act, and I therefore accept her claim.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———