Citation: 2020 RLLR 35
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 5, 2020 (date of transcription)
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
RPD Number: MB8-25654
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000028-000034
 This is the decision in the claim of Mr. [XXX], his wife Madam [XXX] and their minor children, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] who are citizens of Egypt and are claiming asylum pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act hereafter referred to the IRPA.
 The Claimant’s allegations appear in the Principal Claimant’s Basis of Claim form hereafter referred to as the BOC and his written narrative from which the tribunal retains the following central allegations.
 So, the main Claimant was working for [XXX] as an [XXX] for [XXX]. In this capacity he had been mandated to represent the interests of his [XXX] and specifically for this case for the [XXX], or [XXX] on or about 2015. Having been informed of the cancellation of the [XXX] he took the initiative on or about [XXX], 2016 to organize a meeting with [XXX] [phonetic] of the [XXX].
 During their conversation or discussion, should I say, he would have said to [XXX] that the military were indeed taking control over the country which was led [XXX] to terminate abruptly the meeting. Later on, his human resources department would have called him and told him that he was removed from [XXX], [XXX]. That wasn’t all. This episode led to the following incidents which are forming the basis of their refugee claim.
 On [XXX], 2016 at about 3 o’clock the Claimant was arrested from home and brought to [XXX] where he was detained for [XXX] days plus one week and questioned about the Muslim Brotherhood, the revolution of the 25th of January, 2011 and the revolution of the 30th of June, 2013. He will eventually be released upon accepting to write a statement in which he engaged himself not to participate in future political events nor to express his political views in the future and therefore he was released.
 A second arrest took place on [XXX], 2017. In fact, the Claimant was about to leave his office located in [XXX] which is a neighborhood of [XXX] in order to meet a friend or a colleague from [XXX] and once at the [XXX] he was arrested by the police and taken to the national security building. He was slapped, interrogated, humiliated and later on put in detention under poor conditions.
 His release was secured after [XXX] days. However, he soon realized that they were direct repercussions to his problems with the [XXX] as his employer had forced him to resign and accordingly, he was facing a loss of several benefits. He was told directly and indirectly that the intelligence unit or national security apparatus had informed the employer that to keep him in this position was not good for their business. And it is understood according to the Claimant that he was sacrificed on the basis of higher commercial interests of [XXX].
 This led him to make the decision to visit Canada with his wife, his younger child and his mother on [XXX], 2017. However, as two of his children had remained in Egypt the CoClaimant was forced to return to Egypt on [XXX], 2017 while the Principal Claimant remained in the Montreal area. It appears that he was trying to heal from the past incidents.
 However, he was informed that the police raided his house on [XXX], 2018 in his absence as they were looking for him in order to arrest him. This prompted this decision to depart from Canada and return back to Cairn which he did on [XXX], 2018. Even though he was not arrested he was detained at the passport unit for two hours and let go.
 Again, on [XXX], 2018 he was arrested from home by joint forces including police and army personnel, taken by truck outside Cairn and put in detention in a facility which was unofficial according to him. And where the regime opponents were detained. It is his understanding that the people there were mostly accused or suspected of having activities with the Muslim Brotherhood or to have western views or collaborating with western countries. He was later on taken to [XXX] [phonetic] where he was released as his wife was waiting for him.
 Upon this last release the Claimant decided to go to the north part of Egypt to be as much as possible away from his family for their safety and it is on or about [XXX], 2018 that he took the decision to leave Egypt in order to seek international protection. As he was fearful of being controlled and possible arrested but also afraid of putting his wife and children in danger, he decided to contact people and try to organize a collaboration of state security apparatus in place by paying individuals that would facilitate his departure from Egypt without any problems.
 It is therefore in those circumstances that the Claimant came to Canada with the idea of claiming refugee status which led to the current hearing.
 Naturally as minor children are involved in the process of this hearing the tribunal had the opportunity to confirm that for this proceeding the main Claimant, Mr. [XXX] was appointed and accepted the responsibilities of Designated Representative for his minor children, namely, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]. This in accordance with Section 167(2) of the IRPA and RPD Rule 20 and Guideline No. 3.
 Under the rubric of determination, the tribunal finds that the Claimants have established that they would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground should they return to their home country, Egypt. Therefore, the tribunal finds that they are “Convention Refugees”.
 In making this assessment the tribunal considered all of the evidence including the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence filed by the board but also by their counsel.
 The Claimant’s identities as citizens of Egypt is established through their original passports containing a Canadian visa. Their passports were seized by Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA and therefore the Claimants have met their burden of proof to the satisfaction of the tribunal.
 Under the rubric of nexus in this case the Claimant’ s fear are linked to two Convention grounds. First political opinion and secondly, membership in a particular social group, namely the family group for the Co-Claimant and the children.
 As for the credibility, when a Claimant swears that certain facts are true this creates a presumption that they are indeed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their veracity. The determination as to whether a Claimant’s evidence is creditable is made on the balance of probabilities. In assessing credibility, the tribunal was mindful of the Claimant’s profile. The tribunal is cognizant of many difficulties faced by claimants in establishing a claim including cultural factors, the milieu of the hearing room, the stress inherent in responding to questions and sometimes through an interpreter and nervousness.
 It is important to mention that the Claimant’s allegations were also supported by numerous documentary evidence establishing that they were targeted by the state security apparatus, the police force and or the military and that the Principal Claimant was detained on several occasions.
 To this effect it is important to mention that the Principal Claimant professional and corporate profile was established through several documents including but not limited to his CV, social insurance contributions, internal communications at [XXX]. All of these documents were filed under Exhibit 4, Item P4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18.
 As for the prosecutor incidents they were also corroborated by the Claimant’s letter of resignation to [XXX] and numerous police reports and lawyer’s letters. Indeed, we have the resignation letter filed under Exhibit 4, Item P9 but also, we have a police report filed as Item P10 for the arrest of [XXX], 2016, P11 concerning the disappearance of the Principal Claimant on [XXX], 2017, P12 concerning the police raid on the residence of the Claimant on [XXX], 2018 and finally Exhibit P14 pertaining to the arrest of [XXX], 2018.
 Accordingly, we had also the benefit of seeing the letters from his lawyer pertaining to the raid of [XXX], 2018 filed as Item P13 and the letter to the Attorney General sent by his lawyer pertaining to his arrest and detention following the event of [XXX], 2018.
 So, all this evidence stated above corroborated the Claimant’s allegations of the persecutory acts they have faced and also of their subjective fear of returning back to Egypt and facing again persecution at the hands of the state security apparatus.
 In reaching this conclusion the panel also considering Section 203 of the UNHCR Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status as it states that it is hardly possible for refugee claimants to prove every part of their case and also Section 39 which states that a person would not normally abandon his home and country without some compelling reasons. As a matter of fact, under the objective basis the tribunal further finds that the Claimant’s evidence as a whole is generally consistent with the objective documentary evidence.
 Indeed, Exhibit 4, Item 19, filed on behalf of the Claimant consists of three newspaper articles pertaining to the arrest of opponents to the regime or their suspicious disappearances. Moreover, the latest Human Rights Watch Report for 2018 refers to the regime’s campaign of intimidation, violence and arrests against political opponents, the civil society and whoever criticizes the government.
 The fight against terrorism is the general pretext for the repression and multiple human rights abuses in order to silence even the most pacifist opponents. In fact, the poor human rights record of the current Egyptian regime is detailed throughout the National Documentation Package as it [phonetic] appears from Exhibit No. 3. Therefore, the Claimants allegations are plausible within the social and political environment prevailing in Egypt.
 As for the state protection and the internal flight alternative even though the tribunal has not identified such issues it is important to mention that the state is the agent of persecution and the state of Egypt is in full control over its sovereign territory protection and state protection and IFA are not viable options in the case at bar.
 Finally, under the rubric of conclusion the tribunal finds that the Claimants have established that they would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground in Egypt.
 Having considered all of the evidence the tribunal determines that Mr. [XXX], his wife [XXX] and their minor children, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] are “Convention Refugees” pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
 It is therefore unnecessary for the tribunal to conduct an analysis of Section 97(1) of the Act.
 On behalf of all Canadians but in my personal name I welcome you to Canada and wish that you will be able to find happiness here and serenity and that you will be able to materialize your dreams.
 Therefore, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Maître Beauchemin for his usual collaboration and to our interpreter and I wish you a wonderful day. It is now two minutes past eleven and this is ending today’s hearing in the case number MB8-25654. Have a nice day everyone.