Category: All Countries

2019 RLLR 184

Citation: 2019 RLLR 184
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 26, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ameena Sultan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-30631
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000779-000785

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[2] Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA² 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.³ Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁴ 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.

[3] The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness⁵ for the expedited process on February 14, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that it meets the criteria for expedited determination.

[4] This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division.⁶

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations as outlined in the narrative to his Basis of Claim (BOC)⁷form dated November 2, 2018.

[6] The claimant is a 25-year-old resident of Cairo who fears for his life on the basis of his sexual identity as a bisexual man in Egypt. He recalls his introduction to members of the LGBTQ community at a café in Cairo at the age of eighteen, and attending parties where people were openly gay. Having come from a disadvantaged background following his parents’ divorce, the claimant saw an opportunity to make a lot of money and became a XXXX XXXX. He had a two year relationship with a Saudi man whom he met through Facebook, in addition to a several same sex relationships with members of the Cairo LGBTQ community. In May 2014, the claimant and a companion were apprehended by the morality police. They were abused and humiliated in detention before being charged with prostitution. The claimant was sentenced to four years’ hard labour. While in custody and waiting for his appeal, he began taking a lot of drugs and engaged in self harm by cutting. The claimant was released after six months, but his health continued to deteriorate. Within a year of his release, the claimant was diagnosed with HIV and saw a number of his friends succumb to AIDS-related complications. With his mother’s encouragement, the claimant started a successful course of treatment which resulted in a ‘zero virus’ test as of November 2017.

[7] In 2018, the claimant entered into a relationship with a woman to whom he was introduced by his mother. When confronted by his girlfriend with an ultimatum, however, he chose his male partner over her. Reluctant to socialize, the claimant continued to fear arrest on a daily basis. With the help of Bedayaa, an LGBTQ-rights organization in Egypt, the claimant was eventually able to obtain a Canadian visa through the Rainbow Railroad, and left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He filed a claim for refugee protection inland on November 26, 2018 in Toronto.

[8] The claimant fears persecution and harm at the hands of homophobic persons on the basis of his sexual identity in Egypt. He also alleges that the authorities are unable or unwilling to protect him, as a bisexual man, in Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[9] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[10] The claimant’ s identity as a national of Egypt has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a valid Arab Republic of Egypt passport⁸that was seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE)

[11] The claimant has also established his identity as a bisexual man, on a balance of probabilities, by way of his personal documentation, including a record of a court proceeding⁹which lists the claimant’s charges as advertising for and practising “whoredom with men for money.”¹⁰

Credibility

[12] The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),¹¹ intake forms,¹² GCMS notes by the Cairo visa post officer,¹³ and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel,¹⁴ and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that he is a bisexual man who has previously been harassed and persecuted, including having faced criminal charges,¹⁵ on the basis of his sexual identity in Egypt.

[13] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁶ the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, his profile as a bisexual man who has been targeted by Egyptian officials and homophobic individuals because of his sexual identity.

[14] As sexual orientation falls within the membership of a particular social group category, and thus forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Egypt.

[15] The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimant has met that test.

State protection

[16] In order to establish a claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must rebut the presumption of state protection. The claimant did not seek protection from the authorities, as the state itself was the agent of persecution in this particular case, through its discriminatory legal and judicial apparatus when interacting with LGBTQ persons in Egypt.

[17] The panel has before it country conditions documentation indicating that, even though same-sex relationships between consenting adults are not illegal, “the Law on the Combating of Prostitution, and the law against debauchery have been used liberally to imprison gay men in recent years.”¹⁷

[18] The panel notes the following:

Public morality is recognised by international law as grounds for limiting expression … [and] individuals who, through their sexual or gender expression, disrupt conservative binary gender models are especially vulnerable in Egypt, according to an activist who was based in Egypt through recent years. Through 2015 and 2016, widely publicised arrests continue. …

According to 76 Crimes, the largest reported number of arrests of LGBT people has been in Egypt, where a crackdown has been under way since 2013 as part of a larger government effort to arrest and harass political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists. In late-2016, LGBT community leaders estimate that as many as 500 LGBT people have been sent to prison.¹⁸

[19] Country documentation further states that

[a]fter a coup resulted in a new government in late 2013, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) began documenting increased arrests and harassment of people perceived to be gay or transgender by the public morals police, with at least 77 arrests taking place between October 2013 and May 2014. Arrests continue at similar rates— many of them stemming from police efforts to entrap gay men by using social media.¹⁹ [citations omitted]

[20] Country documentation confirms that LGBTQ persons continue to be targeted by Egyptian authorities through the state’s penal and legal apparatus. The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimant’s allegations, and that he has provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect him as a bisexual man. As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection should he return to Egypt.

[21] In noting that the state itself is the agent of persecution in this particular case, the panel also finds that there is not an area of the country where the claimant would be able to reside and safely participate in the community, and as such there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant anywhere in Egypt.

[22] Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimant could face persecution on the basis of his sexual orientation should he return to Egypt, and that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to him anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION

[23] Based on the foregoing analysis, the panel has determined that the claimant has established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground as per section 96 of IRPA if he were to return to Egypt.

[24] The panel therefore finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts the claim.

(signed) M. MOC

February 26, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

3 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

5 Exhibit 4.

6 Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division, effective January 29, 2019.

7 Exhibit 2.

8 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

9 Exhibit 5, personal documents.

10 Ibid., page 2.

11 Exhibit 2.

12 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

13 Ibid., see GCMS notes.

14 Exhibit 5.

15 Ibid., see appeal court record, page 2-10.

16 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

17 Ibid., tab 6.1: Egypt. State-Sponsored Homophobia. A world survey of sexual orientation laws: criminalisation, protection and recognition. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Aengus Carroll; Lucas Ramon Mendos. May 2017.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., tab 6.2: Egypt. Dignity Debased: Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions. Human Rights Watch. 12 July 2016.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 183

Citation: 2019 RLLR 183
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 8, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ameena Sultan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-28685
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000748-000754

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[3] The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness⁵ for the expedited process on February 1, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that it meets the criteria for expedited determination.

[4] This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division.⁶

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations as outlined in the narrative to his Basis of Claim (BOC)⁷ form dated October 9, 2018.

[6] The claimant is a 21-year-old man who was born in Kuwait to Egyptian parents who were strict, devout Muslims. He recalls feeling as if under constant surveillance by his father throughout childhood, and being disciplined for acting in a feminine manner by his mother. As an adolescent, the claimant realized that he was attracted to boys rather than girls. As he grew up in Mansoura, a small conservative town, he was afraid to act on his feelings. When he moved to Cairo in 2015 to attend university, however, the claimant began using social media to meet and date men. In 2016, he met XXXX, his long-term partner, and their relationship quickly became serious.

[7] The claimant was able to keep his sexual identity, including his relationship with XXXX, secret from his parents, but the need to keep things from his strict parents was causing him a great deal of stress. In July 2017, XXXX was arrested by the police on suspicion of homosexual activity and facilitating prostitution. After his release from detention, XXXX came to the claimant’s home, where the claimant’s father discovered them. The claimant was badly beaten by his father, who attempted to kill him with a screwdriver during the assault.

[8] The stress of XXXX court case and the claimant’s abuse at the hands of his father cause the couple to agree to end the relationship. They had tried to flee Egypt and applied for visas to France and the Netherlands which were denied. Eventually, both he and XXXX were able to obtain Canadian visas with the help of Bedaya, an Egyptian LGBTQ rights agency, and through the Rainbow Railroad organization in Canada. The claimant left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He filed a claim for refugee protection inland on November 8, 2018 in Toronto.

[9] The claimant fears persecution and harm at the hands of homophobic persons, including his father, on the basis of his sexual identity in Egypt. He also alleges that the authorities are unable or unwilling to protect him, as a gay man, in Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[10] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[11] The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a valid Arab Republic of Egypt passport⁸that was seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE)

[12] The claimant has also established his identity as a gay man by way of his personal documentation, including but not limited to the following: text messages; letter of support from LGBTQ organization Bedaya; and various photographs depicting the claimant with his former partner XXXX and other LGBTQ activists.⁹

Credibility

[13] The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),¹⁰ intake forms,¹¹ GCMS notes by the Cairo visa post officer,¹² and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel,¹³ and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that he is a gay man who has previously been harassed and persecuted, including having been physically assaulted by his father,¹⁴ on the basis of his sexual identity in Egypt.

[14] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁵ the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, his profile as a gay man who has been targeted by homophobic individuals because of his sexual identity.

[15] As sexual orientation falls within the membership of a particular social group category, and thus forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Egypt.

[16] The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimant has met that test.

State protection

[17] In order to establish a claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must rebut the presumption of state protection. The claimant did not seek protection from the authorities, as the state itself is the agent of persecution in this particular case, through its discriminatory legal and judicial apparatus when interacting with LGBTQ persons in Egypt.

[18] The panel has before it country conditions documentation indicating that, even though same-sex relationships between consenting adults are not illegal, “the Law on the Combating of Prostitution, and the law against debauchery have been used liberally to imprison gay men in recent years.”¹⁶

[19] The panel notes the following:

[20] Country documentation further states that

[21] Country documentation confirms that LGBTQ persons continue to be targeted by Egyptian authorities through the state’s penal and legal apparatus. The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimant’s allegations, and that he has provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect him as a gay man. As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection should he return to Egypt.

[22] In noting that the state itself is the agent of persecution in this particular case, the panel also finds that there is not an area of the country where the claimant would be able to reside and safely participate in the community, and as such there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant anywhere in Egypt.

[23] Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimant could face persecution on the basis of his sexual orientation should he return to Egypt, and that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to him anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION

[24] Based on the foregoing analysis, the panel has determined that the claimant has established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground as per section 96 of IRPA if he were to return to Egypt.

[25] The panel therefore finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts the claim.

(signed) M. MOC

February 8, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

3 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

5 Exhibit 4.

6 Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division, effective January 29, 2019.

7 Exhibit 2.

8 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

9 Exhibit 5, personal documents.

10 Exhibit 2.

11 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

12 Ibid., see GCMS notes.

13 Exhibit 5.

14 Ibid., see photographs of claimant’s injuries, page 28-30.

15 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

16 Ibid., tab 6.1: Egypt. State-Sponsored Homophobia. A world survey of sexual orientation laws: criminalisation, protection and recognition. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Aengus Carroll; Lucas Ramon Mendos. May 2017.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., tab 6.2: Egypt. Dignity Debased: Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions. Human Rights Watch. 12 July 2016.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 182

Citation: 2019 RLLR 182
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 8, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ameena Sultan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-28684
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000741-000747

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[3] The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness⁵ for the expedited process on February 1, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that it meets the criteria for expedited determination.

[4] This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division.⁶

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations as outlined in the narrative to his Basis of Claim (BOC)⁷form dated October 9, 2018.

[6] The claimant is a 26-year-old resident of Cairo who fears for his life on the basis of his sexual identity as a gay man in Egypt. He recalls first coming to the realization of being attracted to boys rather than girls in middle school, and attempting to supress such feelings throughout high school. Following the events of the 2011 revolution, the claimant stopped attending mosque and no longer believed that homosexuality was a sin. In 2013, he joined Bedaya, an organization advocating for the rights of LGBTQ persons in Egypt.

[7] The claimant was able to keep his sexual identity, including a long-term relationship with a live-in partner, secret for several years, until he was attacked by a group of neighbours in July 2017. When the police arrived, they arrested the claimant along with four of his friends, also members of the LGBTQ community, charging him with facilitating prostitution. While in detention, the claimant and his friends were abused and humiliated not only by the police, but also sexually assaulted and tortured by the inmates.

[8] Even though the claimant was eventually cleared of the charges against him, his mental health had suffered as a result of the experience and the loss of his home and friends. He had unsuccessfully applied for visas to France and the Netherlands over 2017 and 2018 a number of times. The claimant was finally able to obtain a Canadian visa with the help of the Rainbow Railroad organization, and left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. He filed a claim for refugee protection inland on November 8, 2018 in Toronto.

[9] The claimant fears persecution and harm at the hands of homophobic persons on the basis of his sexual identity in Egypt. He also alleges that the authorities are unable or unwilling to protect him, as a gay man, in Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[10] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[11] The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a valid Arab Republic of Egypt passport⁸ that was seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE)

[12] The claimant has also established his identity as a gay man by way of his personal documentation, including but not limited to the following: Facebook profile and posts; letter of support from LGBTQ organization Bedaya; and various photographs depicting the claimant with his partner and other LGBTQ activists.⁹

Credibility

[13] The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),¹⁰ intake forms,¹¹ GCMS notes by the Cairo visa post officer,¹² and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel,¹³ and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that he is a gay man who has previously been harassed and persecuted, including having faced fabricated criminal charges¹⁴ of which he was acquitted, on the basis of his sexual identity in Egypt.

[14] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁵ the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, his profile as a gay man and LGBTQ rights activist who has been targeted by Egyptian officials and homophobic individuals because of his sexual identity.

[16] The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimant has met that test.

State protection

[17] In order to establish a claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must rebut the presumption of state protection. The claimant did not seek protection from the authorities, as the state itself was the agent of persecution in this particular case, through its discriminatory legal and judicial apparatus when interacting with LGBTQ persons in Egypt.

[19] The panel notes the following:

[20] Country documentation further states that

CONCLUSION

[25] The panel therefore finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts the claim.

(signed) M. MOC

February 8, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

3 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

5 Exhibit 4.

6 Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division, effective January 29, 2019.

7 Exhibit 2.

8 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

9 Exhibit 5, personal documents.

10 Exhibit 2.

11 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

12 Ibid., see GCMS notes.

13 Exhibit 5.

14 Ibid., see court record, page 1-30.

15 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., tab 6.2: Egypt. Dignity Debased: Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions. Human Rights Watch. 12 July 2016.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 181

Citation: 2019 RLLR 181
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 26, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A. Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-26310
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-26375, TB8-26376
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000721-000727

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the minor claimants”), who claim to be citizens of Egypt and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

[2] As the claimants are a mother and her two sons, aged fifteen and thirteen years respectively, their claims were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.²Having reviewed the claimant’s divorce certificate and parental consent from the father of the two minor children, the panel assigned the claimant as the designated representative for the minor claimants. All three claimants rely on the allegations as stated in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim, RPD file number TB8-26310.

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[3] Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA³ 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.⁴ Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁵directs 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.

[4] The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness⁶ for the expedited process on January 29, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that it meets the criteria for expedited determination. This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division.⁷

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The following is a summary of the allegations as outlined in the narrative to the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC)⁸ form dated October 11, 2018.

[6] The claimant was born in Cairo- into a Muslim family. She had been married a total of three times. In around 2013, when her third husband insisted that they travel to Mecca for the pilgrimage, the claimant began to actively reject Islam. She started reading the Bible and watching Christian programs, and, in 2014 travelled to Italy to visit an old friend who had converted to Christianity. In Italy, the claimant attended church and took lessons to learn more about Christ, hoping to be baptized before returning to Egypt. In 2015, the claimant was unable to keep her new faith from her employer and colleagues, and quit her job as a result of the animosity. Suspicion of her conversion to Christianity spread, and she began to fear for the safety of her two sons, the minor claimants. The claimant’s family members began to pressure her to undertake the pilgrimage, and the minor claimants feared that their father, the claimant’s former spouse, might report her to the authorities for apostasy. The claimant realized that she could not practise her religion freely in Egypt. When she observed that her older son became interested in Christian teachings and expressed a wish to be baptized himself, the claimant made the decision to leave Egypt with her sons and seek safety abroad.

[7] The claimants travelled from Egypt to Canada on previously obtained tourist visas and made their claims for refugee protection on October 18, 2018 at the port of entry in St. Catharines, Ontario.

[8] The claimant fears persecution and harm at the hands of radical Islamists and state officials on the basis of religion in Egypt. She also alleges that the Egyptian authorities are unable or unwilling to protect her, and in tum her sons, as a convert from Islam to Christianity.

DETERMINATION

[9] The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[10] The claimants’ identities as nationals of Egypt have been established, on a balance of probabilities, by their Arab Republic of Egypt passports⁹ that were seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—religious

[11] The claimant has established her identity as a convert from Islam to Orthodox Christianity by way of the following personal documentation: her national identity card, birth, and divorce certificates, all of which indicate the holder’s religion to be Islam¹⁰; and letters from churches in Italy, Egypt, and Canada¹¹;baptism certificate from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Cairo¹²; and photographs depicting the claimant in church with her priest.¹³

Credibility

[12] The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),¹⁴ intake forms,¹⁵ and personal documentation disclosed,¹⁶ and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that she has converted from Islam to Orthodox Christianity and has actively practised her new faith as a Coptic Christian in Egypt and Canada since her official baptism ceremony, which took place on January 16, 2016¹⁷ in Cairo.

[13] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁸ the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, her profile as an Egyptian citizen who has converted from Islam to Christianity, and who faces a risk of persecution on the basis of religious identity.

[14] As religion forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimants return to Egypt. The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimants have met that test.

State protection

[15] In order to establish a claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must rebut the presumption of state protection. The claimant did not seek police protection, as the representatives of the Egyptian state were themselves the agents of persecution in this particular case. The claimant feared her family members, including her mother, brothers, and former spouse, and tried to keep her new faith from state officials and everyone else around her. She came to believe that the police would not only fail to protect her and her children in Egypt, but would actively pursue her on charges of apostasy.

[16] The panel has before it country conditions documentation indicating that

a convert to Christianity from Islam will have extreme difficulty dealing with officials and neighbours who have any idea of his or her decision … [and] Muslim converts to Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam tantamount to treason.¹⁹ [citations omitted]

[17] Similarly, a spokesperson from the Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada stated that

authorities will attempt to dissuade someone from converting from Islam to Christianity and may arbitrarily imprison the person alongside “dangerous criminals” if they insist on converting. A report from Amnesty International (AI) states that under the country’s emergency law, in force since the 1981 assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, there was a system of administrative detention allowing for the detention of individuals “without charge or trial.” The report indicates that such administrative detainees could include religious minorities, and “sometimes converts from Islam to Christianity.”²⁰ [citations omitted]

[18] The panel also has before documentation indicating that Copts have complained of arise in kidnappings, armed robberies and assault following the ousting of former President Morsi.²¹ There are longstanding allegations that the authorities have failed to provide sufficient protection for the Coptic community, and that inadequate police response has created a climate of impunity:

The government frequently failed to prevent, investigate, or prosecute crimes targeting members of religious minority groups, which fostered a climate of impunity, according to a prominent local rights organization. The government often failed to protect Christians targeted by kidnappings and extortion according to sources in the Christian community, and there were reports that security and police officials sometimes failed to respond to these crimes, especially in Upper Egypt.²²

[19] Country documentation confirms that Christians continue to be targeted by Islamic militants, attacks against Copts take place throughout Egypt, and state authorities are slow to act.²³ The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimant’s allegations, and that she has provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect her as a Coptic Christian. As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection should she return to Egypt. The panel also finds that there is not an area of the country where the claimant would be able to practise her religion freely and in safety.

[20] Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimants could face persecution and harm at the hands of Muslim extremists, including state officials, should they return to Egypt. The panel further finds that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to the principal claimant as a convert from Islam and practising Orthodox Christian anywhere in the country, and that this lack of protection extends to her sons, the minor claimants, as well.

CONCLUSION

[21] Based on the foregoing analysis, the panel has determined that the claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground as per section 96 of IRPA if they were to return to Egypt.

[22] The panel therefore finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and accepts the claims.

(signed) M. MOC

February 26, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

2 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 170(f).

4 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

5 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

6 Exhibit 6.

7 Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division, effective January 29, 2019.

8 Exhibit 2, BOC of principal claimant, TB8-26310.

9 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

10 Exhibit 7, personal documentation package #1.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Exhibit 8, personal documentation package #2.

14 Exhibit 2.

15 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

16 Exhibit 11.

17 Exhibit 7, page 11.

18 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

19 Ibid., tab 12.7: Whether people who have converted from Islam to Christianity, particularly those converts who have been arrested, are able to obtain passports and leave the country (April 2010-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 November 2013. EGY104664.E.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., tab 12.1: Egypt. International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. United States. Department of State. 10 August 2016.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid., tab 12.8: Situation of Coptic Christians, including treatment; state protection available (2014-May 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 8 May 2015. EGY105152.E.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 180

Citation: 2019 RLLR 180
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 29, 2019
Panel: Harvey Savage
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Raphael Vagliano
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-25609
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000705-000708

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.

ALLEGATIONS

[3] You allege the following: You allege that your husband belongs to a tribe in Egypt that conducts Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) on female children and female adults. Your husband’s family has notified you that they wish to perform FGM on yourself and on your children when they reach four years of age. Your husband has told you that his family and tribe is very strong and that he is unable to prevent them from carrying this out. You also fear that as a politically liberal woman who has criticized the government in social media, you would face serious harm upon returning to Egypt. Just before you fled Egypt you insulted a military person seeking your husband and considered yourself fortunate that your name was not on a watch list as you exited the country.

DETERMINATION

[4] I find that you are a Convention refugee as you have established a serious possibility of persecution should you return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5] I find that your identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided: Passport.

Credibility

[6] Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above. Your husband’s letter that he is unable to oppose the strong pressure of his family and tribe to perform FGM on yourself and your daughters, and the letter from your wife’s sister, from the same tribe, who underwent FGM. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

[7] Based on the credibility of your allegations, and the documentary evidence set out below, I find that you have established a future risk that you will be subjected to the following harm: FGM complicated by your political history of dissent.

[8] The fact that you face this risk is corroborated by the following documents: National Documentation Package for Egypt—June 29, 2018, items 2.1, 4.3, 5.7, 5.6 and 5.7.

Risk of harm

[9] This harm clearly amounts persecution.

State protection

[l0] I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. The documentary evidence above cited demonstrates that police protection against FGM is often inadequate and inconsistent.

Internal flight alternative

[11] I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. I find that there are no other parts of the country, where you would not face a risk to your life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. I considered that your husband’s tribe is strong and influential, that he is unable to prevent them from conducting this FGM ritual on you, and further that as a person who has demonstrated open dissent to the government, that there is no safe internal flight alternative for you in Egypt.

[12] On the evidence before me, I find that it is not objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to you, for you to seek refuge in Egypt for the same reasons listed above.

CONCLUSION

[13] Based on the analysis above, I conclude that you are a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I accept your claim.

(signed) HARVEY SAVAGE

March 29, 2019

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 179

Citation: 2019 RLLR 179
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 30, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): M. Mary Akhbari
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-20690
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-20691
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000663-000669

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the claimant”) and Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the associate claimant”), who claim to be citizens of Egypt and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

[2] As the claimants are common-law partners, their claims were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.² The principal file number on record is TBS-20690.

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[3] Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA³ 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.⁴ Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁵ 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.

[5] This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.⁷

ALLEGATIONS

[6] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations as outlined in the narrative to her Basis of Claim (BOC)⁸ form dated July 19, 2018.

[7] The claimants are a young female couple who fear for their life on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in Egypt. The principal claimant describes growing up in Egypt and attending primary school in Saudi Arabia, and gradually coming to realize and understand her sexual orientation as a lesbian woman. In high school, the claimant began researching about the LGBTQ community online, and experienced her first romantic relationship with a classmate. In 2015, the claimant’s parents discovered phone messages from her lesbian friends, and forcibly had her admitted to hospital for treatment of mental illness. Upon release, the claimant’s daily activities continued to be monitored by her family. In October 2016, the claimant met her partner, the associate claimant, through social media, and the couple moved in together in September 2017.

[8] The claimants observed the crackdown on the LGBTQ community by the Egyptian police, and attempted to secure travel visas to leave the country. As they moved from Cairo to Giza, they were at times stopped and questioned by the police, harassed by members of the public, and evicted from their apartment. Through Bedaya, an organization that assists LGBTQ individuals in Egypt, the claimants made contact with the Rainbow Railroad of Toronto, and attended interviews at the Canadian Embassy in Cairo. They left Egypt for Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, filing their claims for refugee protection inland on August 24, 2018 in Toronto.

[9] The claimants fear persecution and harm at the hands of homophobic persons, including state officials, on the basis of their sexual orientation in Egypt. They also allege that the authorities are unable or unwilling to protect them, as lesbian women, in Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[10] The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[11] The claimants’ identities as nationals of Egypt have been established, on a balance of probabilities, by two valid Arab Republic of Egypt passports⁹ that were seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE)

[12] The claimants have also established their identities as lesbian women, including their personal identities as conjugal partners in a common-law relationship, by way of their extensive personal documentation, including but not limited to the following: supporting letters and correspondence addressed to the claimants from Rainbow Railroad and Bedaya; text messages between the claimants and their parents; rent receipts for the claimants’ apartment in Egypt; and various photographs.¹⁰

Credibility

[13] The panel has reviewed the claimants’ Basis of Claim (BOC),¹¹ intake forms,¹² GCMS notes by the Cairo visa post officer,¹³ and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel,¹⁴ and has found the claimants to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that they are lesbian women who have previously been harassed and persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation in Egypt.

[14] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁵ the panel has found the claimants’ personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, their profile as lesbian women who have been targeted by Egyptian officials and homophobic individuals because of their sexual identity.

[15] As gender identity falls within the membership of a particular social group category, and thus forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimants return to Egypt.

[16] The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimants have met that test.

State protection

[17] In order to establish a claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must rebut the presumption of state protection. The claimants did not seek protection from the authorities, as the state itself was the agent of persecution in this particular case, through its discriminatory legal and judicial apparatus when interacting with LGBTQ persons in Egypt.

[19] The panel notes the following:

[20] Country documentation further states that

[21] Country documentation confirms that LGBTQ persons continue to be targeted by Egyptian authorities through the state’s penal and legal apparatus. The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimants’ allegations, and that they have provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect them as lesbian women. As such, the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection should they return to Egypt.

[22] In noting that the state itself is the agent of persecution in this particular case, the panel also finds that there is not an area of the country where the claimants would be able to reside and safely participate in the community, and as such there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimants anywhere in Egypt.

[23] Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimants could face persecution on the basis of their sexual identity should they return to Egypt, and that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to them anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION

[24] Based on the foregoing analysis, the panel has determined that the claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground as per section 96 of IRPA if they were to return to Egypt.

[25] The panel therefore finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and accepts the claims.

(signed) M. MOC

January 30, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

2 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 170(f).

4 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

5 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

6 Exhibit 5.

7 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.

8 Exhibit 2, principal claimant’s BOC, RPD file number TB8-20690.

9 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

10 Exhibit 6, personal documentation #1.

11 Exhibits 2 and 3.

12 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

13 Ibid., see GCMS notes.

14 Exhibits 6 and 7.

15 Exhibit 4, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., tab 6.2: Egypt. Dignity Debased: Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions. Human Rights Watch. 12 July 2016.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 178

Citation: 2019 RLLR 178
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 28, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter R. Neill
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-20297
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000656-000662

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, also known as XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[3] The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness⁵ for the expedited process on January 8, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, I find that it meets the criteria for expedited determination.

[4] This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.⁶

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations as outlined in the narrative to her Basis of Claim (BOC)⁷ form dated August 15, 2018, including a minor amendment⁸ dated December 4, 2018.

[6] The claimant is a 22-year-old transgender woman who fears for her life on the basis of her gender identity and expression in Egypt. She describes growing up in Mansoura, a small conservative city in northern Egypt. As an adolescent, the claimant was not clear about her sexual orientation, thinking that she might be gay, but over time came to realize that she was a transgender woman. In 2016, she began to take hormones in order to transition fully.

[7] The claimant was harassed and bullied at university and transferred schools. One evening, she was stopped by the police, sexually assaulted, and her property taken and cell phone records examined. When she resisted, she was threatened with arrest and gang rape. The claimant began to receive calls from the police supervisor, demanding that she have sex with him or suffer the consequences. She was then evicted from her residence and rejected by her family when she sought their help. Through Bedeya, an organization that assists LGBTQ individuals in Egypt, the claimant made contact with the Rainbow Railroad of Toronto, and left Egypt for Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. She filed a claim for refugee protection inland on August 21, 2018 in Toronto.

[8] The claimant fears persecution and harm at the hands of homophobic and transphobic persons on the basis of her gender identity in Egypt. She also alleges that the authorities are unable or unwilling to protect her, as a transgender woman, in Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[9] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[10] The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a valid Arab Republic of Egypt passport⁹ that was seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE)

[11] The claimant has also established her identity as a transgender woman by way of her personal documentation, including but not limited to a letter from the claimant’s attending physician¹⁰ in Egypt and a psychological assessment conducted by a licensed psychologist in Toronto.¹¹

Credibility

[12] The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),¹² intake forms,¹³ GCMS notes by the Cairo visa post officer,¹⁴ and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel,¹⁵ and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that she is a transgender woman who has previously been harassed and persecuted on the basis of her gender identity in Egypt.

[13] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁶ the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, her profile as a transgender woman who has been targeted by Egyptian officials and transphobic individuals because of her gender identity.

[14] As gender identity falls within the membership of a particular social group category, and thus forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimant return to Egypt.

[15] The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimant has met that test.

State protection

[18] The panel notes the following:

Public morality is recognised by international law as grounds for limiting expression… [and] individuals who, through their sexual or gender expression, disrupt conservative binary gender models are especially vulnerable in Egypt, according to an activist who was based in Egypt through recent years. Through 2015 and 2016, widely publicised arrests continue. …

[19] Country documentation further states that

[20] Country documentation confirms that LGBTQ persons continue to be targeted by Egyptian authorities through the state’s penal and legal apparatus. The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimant’s allegations, and that she has provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect her as a transgender woman. As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection should she return to Egypt.

[22] Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimant could face persecution on the basis of her gender identity should she return to Egypt, and that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to her anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION

[24] The panel therefore finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts the claim.

(signed) M. MOC

January 28, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

3 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

5 Exhibit 7.

6 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.

7 Exhibit 2.

8 Exhibit 5.

9 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

10 Ibid., see copies of documents seized.

11 Exhibit 4.

12 Exhibit 2.

13 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

14 Ibid., see GCMS notes.

15 Exhibit 4.

16 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., tab 6.2: Egypt. Dignity Debased: Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions. Human Rights Watch. 12 July 2016.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 177

Citation: 2019 RLLR 177
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 28, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Peter R. Neill
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-20182
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000649-000655

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, also known as XXXX XXXX, who claims to be a citizen of Egypt and is seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[2] Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA² 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.³Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁴ 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.

[3] The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness⁵ for the expedited process on January 8, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, I find that it meets the criteria for expedited determination.

[4] This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.⁶

ALLEGATIONS

[5] The following is a summary of the claimant’s allegations as outlined in the narrative to her Basis of Claim (BOC)⁷ form dated August 15, 2018.

[6] The claimant is a 26-year-old resident of Cairo who identifies as a transgender woman, and who fears for her life on the basis of her gender identity and expression in Egypt. She describes growing up in a conservative family with an abusive father, and being bullied at school for acting feminine. When the claimant sought emotional support and disclosed her identity to her mother, she was ignored at first and then beaten severely. After graduation, the claimant found employment in XXXX, where she had to wear a man’s uniform and internet with the public on a daily basis. She struggled in this job for one year before quitting, and was then subjected to further physical and psychological abuse by her parents. In September 2017, the claimant’s two friends were arrested and detained for three months during a government crackdown against LGBTQ activists. The claimant feared arrest as well, and began the process of obtaining travel documentation in case she needed to flee Egypt.

[7] In early 2018, the claimant made the decision to express her gender identity and present as a woman. She was forced to leave another position when she experienced abuse, transphobic messages, and sexual harassment. She also found out that men in the neighbourhood were planning to kill her. The claimant was able to obtain a Canadian visa with the help of the Rainbow Railroad organization, and left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. She filed a claim for refugee protection inland on August 20, 2018 in Toronto.

DETERMINATION

[9] The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

[10] The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a valid Arab Republic of Egypt passport⁸ that was seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—Sexual Identity/Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE)

[11] The claimant has also established her identity as a transgender woman by way of her personal documentation, including but not limited to the following: text message log; Facebook profile and posts; affidavit from her lawyer in Egypt; and a psychiatric report.⁹

Credibility

[12] The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),¹⁰ intake forms,¹¹ GCMS notes by the Cairo visa post officer,¹² and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel,¹³ and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that she is a transgender woman who has previously been harassed and persecuted on the basis of her gender identity in Egypt.

[13] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,¹⁴ the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, her profile as a transgender woman who has been targeted by Egyptian officials and transphobic individuals because of her gender identity.

[15] The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimant has met that test.

State protection

[18] The panel notes the following:

[19] Country documentation further states that

[20] Country documentation confirms that LGBTQ persons continue to be targeted by Egyptian authorities through the state’s penal and legal apparatus. The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimant’s allegations, and that she has provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect her as a transgender woman. As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection should she return to Egypt.

[22] Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimant could face persecution on the basis of her gender identity should she return to Egypt, and that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to her anywhere in the country.

CONCLUSION

[24] The panel therefore finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts the claim.

(signed) M. MOC

January 28, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

3 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).

4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).

5 Exhibit 6.

6 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.

7 Exhibit 2.

8 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

9 Exhibit 4, personal documents.

10 Exhibit 2.

11 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

12 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, see GCMS notes.

13 Exhibit 4.

14 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.

15 Ibid., tab 6.1: Egypt. State-Sponsored Homophobia. A world survey of sexual orientation laws: criminalisation, protection and recognition. International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and lntersex Association. Aengus Carroll; Lucas Ramon Mendos. May 2017.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., tab 6.2: Egypt. Dignity Debased: Forced Anal Examinations in Homosexuality Prosecutions. Human Rights Watch. 12 July 2016.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 176

Citation: 2019 RLLR 176
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 20, 2019
Panel: Kenneth D. Maclean
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deanna Karbasion
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-05242
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000625-000633

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, seeks refugee protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

[2] The claimant’s allegations are set out most fully in her BOC and accompanying narrative statement which are summarized below.²

ALLEGATIONS

[3] The claimant was born in XXXX 1965 in what was then considered the Jordanian annexed West Bank.

[4] She has a university education – a XXXX XXXX XXXX. She married her first husband in 1988, and with him had four children born in 1989, 1992, 1997 and 2002. All the claimant’s children reside in Canada. The claimant was divorced from her first husband in 2006. The claimant alleges that upon divorce, her married surname ‘XXXX reverted to her maiden surname ‘XXXX.’

[5] Following her divorce, the claimant met XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX living in Cairo, Egypt, on the internet through Yahoo Messenger. After communicating on a frequent basis, XXXX convinced her to relocate to Egypt with her children, which she did in XXXX 2006. The claimant established herself in Cairo and her children entered school. The claimant’s eldest daughter had left home several years earlier, and eventually made her way to Canada via marriage. Over time, her remaining three children left for Canada under the sponsorship of their father, who had immigrated here in 2007. The claimant’s last child immigrated to Canada in XXXX 2017.

[6] The claimants married XXXX in August 2007, and she became an Egyptian citizen by marriage. The couple lived together sharing responsibilities and the claimant worked to have her professional qualifications recognized by the Egyptian Syndicate of Engineering Association. Successful in this endeavour, the claimant found work with a Cairo firm from January 2010 until March 2017.

[7] In March 2017, the claimant’s marriage to XXXX collapsed suddenly when she discovered that he was engaging in a same-sex relationship with a childhood friend XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX). The claimant immediately left home, and with her youngest son found rental accommodations elsewhere. The claimant made security arrangements with her new landlord.

[8] The claimant almost immediately filed for divorce, which was granted on March 16, 2017. On April 1, 2017, the claimant started a new job with another firm in Cairo, which she had applied for prior to the collapse of her marriage. From March to December 2017, XXXX periodically telephoned the claimant seeking a solution to the questions he was receiving from family and friends about why his apparently stable marriage collapsed and was over so fast. XXXX went so far as asking the claimant to visit his parents, who she alleges were fond of her, to stop them from asking questions of him. The claimant declined the suggestion, which led to XXXX become more aggressive in his demands of her, going so far as suggesting that she accept the blame for the divorce. The claimant alleges that XXXX threatened to plant drugs on her and call the police if she did not cooperate. The claimant refused to accede to XXXX continuing demands.

[9] The claimant alleges that because of societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships both XXXX and XXXX were at serious risk of social stigmatization, loss of employment or harm, even death, if their relationship was found out. She alleges that XXXX needed her not to tell anyone about his relationship with XXXX, a commitment she alleges she had given him at the time of the divorce. Fearing escalation of XXXX behavior, the claimant confided in her older children, who advised her to leave Egypt and with their help they explored exit options.

[10] The claimant alleges that she could not return to Palestine, to which she had not returned since her departure in 2006. She alleges that she would need the permission of the Israelis in order to re-enter the West Bank, and suggests that the Israelis would be suspicious of her motives for returning after such a long absence. She claims that because of her family’s history with the Israelis, she was at risk of detention upon return.

[11] Furthermore, the claimant alleges that she could not come to Canada directly, as she had been denied visitor visas twice in 2016, and once at the beginning of 2017. The claimant applied for a United States (US) visitor visa in November 2017, which was received on January 25, 2018.

[12] The claimant alleges that her feared escalated in January 2018, when in the middle of the month, she was approached in front of her place of employment by two thugs who told her that she should return XXXX telephone calls and do what he said. On January 31, 2018 she was again approached while on the way to work by the two previous thugs and a third who carried a knife. She alleges that she was threatened with an acid attack, being disappeared, or killed. After this second incident that claimant did not go to the police to file a report.

[13] After making the arrangements to leave, the claimant departed Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 flying to Buffalo via New York City, and from thence to the US/Canada boarder, where she made her claim for refugee protection the following day.

DETERMINATION

[14] I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection. I accept her claim.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[15] On the basis of the claimant’s testimony and certified true copy of her Egyptian passport,³ I am satisfied that the claimant is a citizen of Egypt. Canada does not recognize the state of Palestine, and accordingly, for the purposes of this matter, the claimant cannot be considered a citizen of the Palestinian Authority, and as such her identity as such is irrelevant.

Credibility and Subjective Fear

[16] In reaching my decision, I am guided by the IRB Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.⁴

[17] I find the claimant to be credible. By her testimony and documentary disclosure, I find that she has established the core elements of her claim – that she is at risk of harm at the hands of XXXX. The claimant declared that the information provided in her BOCs is complete, true, and correct. The claimant’s evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Egypt. In particular, I do not draw a negative inference on the claimant’s failure to make an asylum claims in the US, and accept her explanation for her failure to do so. Simply put, having been denied Temporary Resident Visas for Canada, and in consideration that her entire family resides in Canada, the claimant sought an alternative means of coming here to reach safety.

[18] In assessing the claimant’s credibility, I reviewed her BOC,⁵ port of entry (POE) intake forms,⁶ and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel, which included copies of: documents pertaining to her Egyptian marriage and divorce, her Egyptian Identity Card, education documents, Egyptian and Jordanian professional certification documents.⁷

State Protection

[19] This case is different than a domestic violence case, as the direct threat against the claimant occurred after she had divorced her husband and outside the context of the marriage. She is not threatened by XXXX because she is a woman per se but rather because she knows something which if revealed would place XXXX and his companion at considerable risk of harm themselves. Presumably, the threat from XXXX would be just the same if the claimant were a man who had knowledge of his sexual activities. That being said, it was in the context of the marriage that the demands were first made on XXXX to accept the blame for the failure of the marriage demands that continued after the divorce, and which then turned into direct threats of violence at the hands of third parties.

[20] What turns this into a gender-based issue related to domestic violence is that the Egyptian authorities regard the threat against the claimant in the context of a family matter. It is the claimant’s evidence that when she had previously approached the police of a matter of sexual harassment against her daughter, they had told her to deal with things from within the family.⁸ Thus, it was from the perspective that the threats made against her by her ex-husband would not be taken seriously, because she was a woman, that she did not seek the protection of the state.

[21] The documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, in respect of the police response to domestic violence and violence against women in general, would tend to bare out the claimant’s concern. A report by the United Kingdom (UK) Home Office, in respect of the response of the police and courts in Egypt to violence against women, relates that:

‘Civil society organizations reported police pressure not to pursue charges and fear of societal reprisal actively discouraged women from going to police stations to report crimes, resulting in a very small number of cases being investigated or effectively prosecuted. NGOs estimated the prevalence of rape was several times higher than the rate reported by the government.’⁹

[22] The Home Office document further relates that:

‘ …currently very few women go ahead with legal complaints against their attackers or report attacks to the police. The problems of social stigma and lack of trust in the security forces mean that sexual violence in particular is unlikely to be reported to the police, including to the new Violence Against Women (VAW) unit. According to a 2013 study, 93.4 per cent of respondent survivors of sexual harassment said they did not request help from security forces at the scene of the incident. The most common reasons cited by survivors included: “I feared for my reputation”, “I thought there was no text in the law to penalize harassment”, and “I was also scared from harassment by policemen.”¹⁰

[23] Other information in the NDP for Egypt reveals that violence against women is reported as being socially legitimized, it is surrounded by a culture of silence, largely imposed by the family. Moreover, according to Amnesty International, Egyptian law does not provide the victims with adequate protection.¹¹ Protection mechanisms are very few, and are considered to be essentially ineffective. This is, in part, due to the existence of provisions within the Penal Code that excuse acts of violence that have been committed in good faith in accordance with Sharia Law; the requirements imposed on individual victims of assault to have to produce multiple witnesses. This is a very difficult condition to meet for female victims of violence, given the societal attitude toward women and violence, and the reported often dismissive or abusive attitude of officials who receive the complaints.

[24] In that context, given also the reported reluctance of women to report violence because of shame, fear of retaliation against them and their children, and community pressure, violence against women virtually goes unpunished, allowing the offenders to act in almost total impunity. An Amnesty International Report from January 2015 relates that:

The inadequate and discriminatory legal and policy framework, coupled with the Egyptian authorities’ failure to punish or address the underlying causes of violence against women and girls, has resulted in a culture of impunity in which sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls is pervasive. Such violence affects all aspects of their lives, in the family and the public sphere.¹²

[25] Thus, there is a credible basis for the claimant’s reluctance to seek state protection, and I find that, in these particular circumstances, it would not be forthcoming.

Internal flight alternative

[26] The claimant cannot live safely in Egypt. I asked the claimant why she could not go to live in Alexandria and be safe. She testified that she could not be safe anywhere in Egypt because she was a divorced woman, a Palestinian, and because XXXX had the means and resources to find her. The claimant’s evidence is that after she had left XXXX, she sought out a new job, and that after having started at this new job she witnessed XXXX sitting in his automobile watching her as she left her place of employment. She testified that XXXX, who has connections with Egyptian immigration authorities in the context of his job as a travel agent, would know if and when she returned to Egypt.

[27] I consider that, even now, the claimant continue to pose a threat to XXXX in that it is available to her to inform on him. He has demonstrated his intention in the past, and it is reasonable to assume that he remains highly motivated to prevent his secret from becoming public. Therefore, it is more likely than not, that if she returned to Egypt, he would try to silence her as a way of preserving his own safety.

[28] I also consider that as a divorced woman, with no immediate means of financial support, and no man to protect her, the claimant would be targeted by those who adhere faithfully to the Islamic beliefs in respect of women and their societal role. The claimant is demonstrably westernized; she dresses as a Westerner, does not wear the veil, and as an engineer she has lived and worked outside the usual social norms that constrain many women in Arab countries. I have considered the Response to Information Request (RIR) entitled Egypt: Treatment of women who do not conform to Muslim practices and traditions, including wearing a veil (head covering), in rural and urban areas; state protection available to victims of mistreatment,¹³ and find that my conclusion with respect to the societal treatment of women in Egypt are justified.

[29] Thus, whether in respect of the threat posed by XXXX, or the threat posed by Egyptian society, I find that the claimant would be at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution in all parts of the country.

CONCLUSION

[30] While this case does not fit squarely as a domestic violence claim, it originated from within the context of a marriage, and the agent of harm is the claimant’s ex-husband. Consequently, I have analyzed the risk faced by the claimant from the perspective of domestic violence, but more broadly as violence against women in Egypt in general.

[31] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a strong basis for the claimant’s subjective fear of harm, and that the objective evidence supports a conclusion that her fears are well-founded, that state protection would not be forthcoming, and that, in her particular circumstances, she has no safe place to live in Egypt.

[32] I therefore find that she is a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1)(b) of IRPA, and I accept her claim.

(signed) KENNETH D. MACLEAN

August 20, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).

2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form.

3 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport.

4 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(l)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

5 Exhibit 2, BOC.

6 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC.

7 Exhibit 5, Identity Documents received January 9, 2019, at pp. 28-76.

8 Exhibit 6, Claim Documents received January 9, 2019, at p. 36.

9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.4.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., item 2.2.

12 Ibid., item 5.6.

13 Ibid., item 5.1.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 175

Citation: 2019 RLLR 175
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 20, 2019
Panel: Keith Brennenstuhl
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ilwad Jama
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-20808
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-20869, TB7-20889, TB7-20890, TB7-20920
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000588-000595

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “PC”), his wife, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their three children, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 13), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 17) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (age 19), who claim to be citizens of Egypt, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2] The PC was appointed the designated representative for his minor children.

[3] The Minister intervened in the present case, raising the potential application of Article 1E of the Convention. The Minister submitted that the claimants were permanent residents of Italy and that the claimants were, therefore, excluded.

[4] The application of Article 1E to this case was dealt with on a preliminary basis. I have determined below that Article 1E does not apply to the present case.

[5] The claims have been decided without a hearing, according to the IRB’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

ARTICLE 1E

[6] I will summarize the evidence material to the question of whether Article 1E is applicable in this instance. XXXX and XXXX claim to be Egyptian citizens who moved to Italy in 1996, and 1997, respectively, and lived in the country for over fifteen years. Their children were all born in Italy. XXXX and his family were granted permanent residence status in Italy in 2003, when they obtained “Carta di Soggiorno“.

[7] XXXX and his family left Italy in 2012, to return to Egypt. Since XXXX and his family have not resided in Italy and have not resided in the EU, with the exception of XXXX who went there for a six-month visit.

Assessment of the Issue

[8] Article 1E of the Refugee Convention reads:

This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of nationality in that country.

[9] That article is reflected in section 98 of IRPA: “A person referred to in section E or F article 1 of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.”

[10] In the Zeng decision, the Federal Court of Appeal set out the test to be applied in article 1E exclusions. The Court stated, “Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded.”¹

[11] In the present case, the PC indicated that he and his family were granted permanent residence status in Italy in 2003, when they obtained Carta di Soggioro”. I accept the PC’s testimony that he and his family enjoyed rights in Italy as permanent residents that were substantially similar to those enjoyed by Italian nationals. Specifically, the PC testified that his children were able to go to school, that his family members had access to health care and other social services, the adults were able to seek and obtain employment, and the family had, demonstrably, been able to travel freely in and out of Italy, including to Egypt. These hallmarks of status substantially similar to nationals are directly in line with the four criteria outlined in the Federal Court’s decision of Shamlou,² namely, the right to return to the country of residence, the right to work freely without restrictions, the right to study and full access to social services in the country of residence.

[12] While it is clear that the claimants have long resided in Italy, and actually held and enjoyed status there substantially similar to Italian nationals, the question is whether on the date of the hearing, the claimants still held this status.

[13] According to the Response to Information Request³ a permanent resident of Italy will lose his status in the following cases:

it has been acquired fraudulently;
the state has ordered an expulsion measure against an applicant;
the applicant no longer meets the requirements of the permit;
the applicant has been absent from EU territory for 12 consecutive months;
the applicant has acquired long-term resident status in another European Union member State”;
the applicant has been absent from Italy for more than 6 years.

[14] Counsel for the claimants provided a legal opinion by Sara Riboldi,⁴a lawyer who is a Member of the Ontario Bar and a member of the Italian Bar of Milan in Italy, with offices in Toronto and Milan. She regularly advises Italian government institutions on matters involving Italy and Canada and, on a regular basis, advises individuals on citizenship and immigration issues in relation to Italian law. I found her opinion to be clear and persuasive.

[15] It is clear from the evidence that the claimants have been absent from EU territory for more than 12 months. Ms. Riboldi writes:

As explained above, subsection 7 of Article 9 of Law 286/1998 referred to provides revocation of a long-term residence permit on the grounds of the holder leaving the EU for the period of 12 consecutive months. Specifically, the Italian version of Law 286/1998 states that the Permit “è revocato in caso di assenza dal territorio dell’Unione per un period di dodici mesi consecutive” translated as “is” revoked if the holder leaves the EU for the period of 12 consecutive months. Therefore by operation of law the long-term permit is revoked when any conditions listed under Subsection 7 of the Law 286/ 1998 is found. Some police websites erroneously mention that the long-term permit “can” be revoked if someone leaves EU for more than 1 year. Please note that this is not the tenor of the law, which states that a Permit “is” revoked if the person leaves the EU for more than one year.

[16] Ms. Riboldi continues:

If XXXX and his family were to return to Italy and truthfully disclose that they left the country in 2012 and did not return by the end of 2013, the Italian immigration authorities will immediately conduct an investigation, which will result in a legal decision concerning whether they have forsaken their long-term permanent resident status there. NP When faced with the prospect of revocation, the holder of the permit can argue that the period of 12 consecutive months did not run in his/her case because he/she encountered exceptional circumstances that did not allow him or her to return to the EU within the prescribed time. The burden of proof is on the holder of the permit to show the “exceptional circumstances”. To reverse the revocation of a long-term residence permit, he would need to prove the existence of grave circumstances that would justify setting aside the revocation set by the law of the permit. The only exceptional circumstances considered in Italian case law on whether the 12 consecutive months did not run in a specific case are military reasons or very serious health issues. It is my understanding that neither of these justifications prevented XXXX and his family from returning to live in Italy. NP In sum, it is clear that: 1) XXXX and his family will not be issued a re-entry visa because they are no longer entitled to their Carta di Soggiorno; 2) because they cannot obtain valid documents they will be unable tore-enter Italy; 3) and because they have not been living in in Italy since 2012 and were absent from the EU for a period longer than 12 months, starting from 2012, it will be determined that they have lost their long-term permanent resident status.

[17] Returning to Zeng, “Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded.” In this particular case the answer is clearly no. In my view, the claimants do not have status “substantially similar to nationals of Italy”. They no longer have the right to work freely without restrictions, the right to study and the right to access to social services and most importantly they have no right to return.

[18] I conclude that Article 1E does not apply to the present case.

THE CLAIMS

Allegations

[19] The allegations are fully set out in the narrative of the PC’s BOC as expanded on in the narrative of his eldest son’s BOC. In short, the PC was not reluctant to continue to express his support for President Morsi who was democratically elected but forced from office by the army and replaced by President Sisi. He would discuss his views with friends and family and post his views on social media. His home was raided by Internal Security who searched his home, took his laptop and forcibly removed him while blind-folded to an unknown location where he was roped to a chair, accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and aggressively interrogated until the following day. Two months later, he was summoned to the police station. He learned through his lawyer that the police had started an investigation against him based on a business competitor’s accusation that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of Morsi. His lawyer advised him not to report to the police and leave the country.

Determination

[20] For the following reasons, I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.

Analysis

Identity

[21] Certified true copies of the claimants’ current Egyptian passports were included in the referral. This is sufficient to establish the claimants’ personal identities as nationals of Egypt.

Nexus

[22] I find that a nexus to section 96 has been established by reason of political opinion in the case of the PC, and membership in a particular social group, namely, family members of a political dissident, in the case of the PC’s wife and children.

Credibility

[23] Regarding the credibility of the claimants, I have reviewed the claimants’ BOCs, the claimants’ intake forms, the personal documentation provided in support of the claim, as well as their country condition documentation. I have also reviewed country condition documentation contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018). The claimants’ evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence. Furthermore, the allegations are corroborated by personal documents that I do not have sufficient reason to discount, including a Notice to Appear from Sharqia police to the PC, and a copy of a police complaint against the PC accusing him of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Objective basis of future risk

[24] Based on the credibility of the allegations and the documentary evidence, I find that claimants face a future risk of detention, physical abuse and torture at the hands of the Egyptian authorities owing to the PC’s support of Morsi and the perception that he is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[25] The documentary evidence⁵ before me on country conditions confirms that the government of Egypt severely represses and persecutes political opposition by means of arrest, long term detention, unfair mass trials, life sentencing and death sentencing, physical abuse, torture and disappearances. I am, therefore, satisfied that the claimants face a serious risk of serious human rights abuse by Egyptian security forces and the courts.

Nature of Harm

[26] In my view, the harm the claimants face if they were to return to Egypt amounts to persecution.

State protection

[27] As the agent of persecution is Egyptian governmental authorities, I find it would be objectively unreasonable for the claimants to seek the protection of the Egyptian government in light of the claimants’ particular circumstances.

Internal flight alternative

[28] On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt, given the objective evidence that the authorities operate similarly throughout the country. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to these claimants.

CONCLUSION

[29] Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimants are Convention refugees. Accordingly, I accept their claims.

(signed) KEITH BRENNENSTUHL

June 20, 2019

1 Zeng, Guanqiu v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-275-09), Noël, Layden-Stevenson, Stratas, May 10, 2010, 2010 FCA 118. Reported: Zeng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] 4 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.A.)

2 Shamlou, Pasha v. MCI (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4967-94), Teitelbaum, November 15, 1995. Reported: Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 32 Imm. L.R. (2d) 135 (F.C.T.D.).

3 Exhibit 15, National Documentation Package for Italy (May 31, 2018), Item 3.3.

4 Exhibit 16, Legal opinion of Sara Riboldi, dated September 19, 2018.

5 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Tabs 1, 2 & 4; Exhibits 10-12, Claimants’ country conditions packages.