Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 215

Citation: 2019 RLLR 215
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 7, 2019
Panel: A. Rico
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Rebeka Lauks
Country: Turkey
RPD Number: TB8-27274
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-27297, TB8-27337
ATIP Number: A-2020-00859
ATIP Pages: 000810-000814

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: This is the reasons for decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim protection filed by XXXX XXXX first name is spelled, XXXXX. last name is spelled, XXXX, XXXX first name is spelled, XXXX last name is spelled, XXXX and· first name is spelled, XXXX middle name is spelled XXXX last name is spelled XXXX, under Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       The allegations are fully set out in the Basis of Claim Forms found at Exhibits 2, 3, and 4. In short, the claimants allege a fear of persecution at the hands of the Turkish Government because the principal claimant’s … because of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion as a diplomat and person affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement. Which led to his discharge under emergency decree from public service on allegations of terrorism.

[3]       For the following reasons I find that the adult claimants are Convention refugees. However, I also find that the minor claimant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

[4]       I am satisfied that the claimant’s … I’m satisfied of the claimant’s identities based on their certified true copies of their passports and I am satisfied that the adult claimants are citizens of Turkey and that the girl minor claimant is a citizen of Turkey and the United States. Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 1.

[5]       I will assess the claim for the minor girl claimant against the United States first before assessing the adult claimant’s claim against Turkey.

[6]       The law states that if a claimant is a national of more than one country the claimant must show that he or she is a Convention refugee with respect to all such countries.

[7]       The girl minor claimant is a citizen of the United States of America as she was born in that country and has right of citizenship by virtue of her birth. She must show that she faces a serious possibility of persecution or, on a balance of probabilities, a danger of torture or a risk to her life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment throughout the United States of America.

[8]       The principal claimant alleges that he believes that the minor claimant is in danger as he believes that the US has made a secret deal with a high profile US citizen when that person was released from prison in Turkey. He believes that the secret deal is that the US will return Turkish citizens of interest to Turkey. The principal claimant forms this belief based on his past work as a diplomat.

[9]       I find the principal claimant’s testimony to be completely speculative. The principal claimant has no direct knowledge as negotiations for release of a high profile US citizen. He was not present for the negotiations. He’s basing this belief primarily from his own fear of persecution in Turkey.

[10]     I note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of persecution in the US for the girl minor claimant. I further note that the claimant’s counsel advanced no evidence of an objective basis or well-foundedness of the claim against the United States for the girl minor claimant.

[11]     I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the principal claimant’s belief is not well-founded.

[12]     The US is a democratic country, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights. There is no objective or concrete evidence beside the principal claimant’s belief that the US would extradite a minor, age approximately nine, to Turkey nor that Turkey would expel the resources required to extradite said minor who has very tenuous links to the Gulen movement.

[13]     While I find that it would be a hardship for the girl minor claimant to return to the United States on her own without her parents, I find that this hardship does not constitute persecution or a need for protection.

[14]     Neither the claimants nor their counsel presented any persuasive objective evidence that the girl minor claimant faced any risk in the United States. As such, the girl minor claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. I must reject her claim for refugee protection.

[15]     I now tum to assess the claims made by the adult claimants. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profile as persons who are or perceived to be members of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.

[16]     The claimants presented a wealth of documentation that the principal claimant … principal claimant is a … was a diplomat. That he applied to various courts to resolve the issue with the Turkish Government. That the Turkish Government’s belief in his involvement in the coup attempt is formed by his attendance at Hizmet affiliate education institutions and his previa work … previous work at the Evidence of which can be found at Exhibit 9.

[17]     Despite my concerns regarding the adult claimant’s delay in claiming in the United States and their abandonment of their claim in the United States, the adult claimant’s have still established, on a balance of probabilities, a profile which the documentary evidence cited below indicates that persons with this profile are persecuted by the Turkish State. As such, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants have established their profiles. The adult claimants have established their profiles as persons affiliated to the Hizmet/Gulen movement and that these profiles place them at a serious risk of persecution if returned to Turkey.

[18]     The persecution of persons with a similar profile of the adult claimants is objectively well­ founded.

[19]     The information in the National Documentation Package found at Exhibit 5 confirms that in July 2016 there was an attempted coup against the Turkish Government. The government blames various sections of the Turkish society who are perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement for this attempted coup, including but not limited to, persons associated with the Hizmet/Gulen institutions, persons employed at or studied at Hizmet affiliated educational institutions, public servants, the judiciary, government officials, military personnel, bilok(p) users, etcetera. Evidence of which can be found, as I state earlier, at Exhibit 5 Items 1.7, 2.1, and 2.5.

[20]     Counsel also submitted documentary evidence to support that diplomats who have an affiliation to the Hizmet/Gulen movement are persecuted in Turkey.

[21]     The government considers these persons to be terrorists, as it considers the Hizmet/Gulen movement to be part of a terrorist organization.

[22]     Under the guise of the emergency decrees and anti-terrorism laws, the Turkish Government subjects these persons to various human right violations including but not limited to arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings.

[23]     Despite the public declaration of a repeal of the state of emergency, there is no persuasive evidence before me to indicate that there is a change in the treatment of persons who are or perceived to be part of the Hizmet/Gulen movement.

[24]     Therefore, based on this country documentary evidence and the credible allegations I find the adult claimants have a well-founded fear of persecution in Turkey by reason of the principal claimant’s real or perceived political opinion.

[25]     As the agent of persecution is the Government of Turkey I find that it would be objectively unreasonable for the adult claimants to seek protection of the Turkish Government.

[26]     I also find that the adult claimants face a serious possibility of persecution throughout Turkey, especially given the country documentation that indicates that the authorities operate similarly throughout Turkey. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to the adult claimants.

[27]     I conclude that adult claimants are Convention refugees and I therefore accept their claim. However, based on the analysis outlined above I find that the minor girl claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and I reject her claim for refugee protection.

[28]     We can pull the mics forward again.

[29]     This concludes today’s hearing. We will be going off the record.

—REASONSCONCLUDED–

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 213

Citation: 2019 RLLR 213
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 22, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Bassam Azzi
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06489
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-06490, VB8-06491, VB8-06492, VB8-06493
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003711-003714

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim ofXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the joined claimantsXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, citizens of Egypt who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).1 The claimants’ identities have been established by copies of their passports.2

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimants fear return to Egypt because they fear persecution because of their Nubian ethnicity and they have been targets of a feud in which the principal claimant’s brother was killed. The claimants left Egypt and had temporary status in Kuwait because of their work. The principal claimant has been detained and questioned by police due to his ethnicity and dark skin colour. Further details are highlighted in their Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.3 The claimants arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018. The claimants signed the BOCs on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.4

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[3]       The claimants provided a detailed narrative and documents supporting the persecution of their family including employment records, police report, death certificates of family members and articles regarding the persecution and marginalization of Nubians in Egypt.5 The objective evidence supports the claimants’ fear of ethnic persecution in Egypt and indicates that the Nubian people in Egypt are an ancient people who live along the border between Sudan and Egypt and they have their own distinct language, customs and culture.6 The Nubian people have been marginalized politically, socially and economically in Egypt.7 There have been deadly clashes between Arab and Nubian tribes and the state has not taken adequate measures to protect Nubians or settle these conflicts.8 Nubians have protested to address the harassment, discrimination and displacement they face in Egypt and have been arrested by Egyptian authorities as a result of the protests.9 The state classified some of the Nubian lands as military zones in 2014 further displacing the Nubians in Egypt.10

[4]       The objective evidence indicates that Egypt’s authoritarian regime is instituting wide- scale repression and punitive litigation “under the auspices of its many new laws to surveil and stifle individual voices of dissent in civil society;” the authoritarian regime has acted methodically targeting those voicing dissent against the government including detentions and extrajudicial killings.11

[5]       The panel finds that the claimants have established a nexus to race/ethnicity. Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the claimants would face more than a mere possibility of persecution if they return to Egypt.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[6]       The objective evidence indicates the following regarding state protection in Egypt:

The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity.12

[7]       The general security context in Egypt is uncertain at this time:

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who first took power in a July 2013 coup, continues to govern Egypt in an authoritarian manner, though the election of a new parliament in late 2015 ended a period of rule by executive decree. Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Terrorism persists unabated in the Sinai Peninsula and has also struck the Egyptian mainland, despite the government’s use of aggressive and often abusive tactics to combat it.13

[8]       Further evidence provides a general overview of the fragility of the current regime and lack of operationally effective state protection in Egypt:

In the first several months of 2017, Egypt has witnessed a number of events that have challenged the country’s stability and security, economic development, and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The Egyptian government has continued its repression of public space, even going so far as to physically close the offices of the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture in early February. The country is no more stable, with terror groups and the Egyptian state engaged in a war of propaganda narratives.14

[9]       Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is no operationally effective state protection available to Nubians who face death threats due to feuds in Egypt from a state that has been complicit in their displacement and marginalization. Further, given the harassment and discrimination of Nubians due to their dark skin colour throughout Egypt, the panel finds that it is not objectively reasonable in their particular circumstances to relocate in Egypt as they would face the same difficulties and harassment throughout Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[10]     For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of the Act. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.

(signed)           Kerry Cundal

February 22, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 1.

3 Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

4 Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

5  Exhibits 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 4.

6 Exhibit 4, pp. 76-97.

7 Exhibit 4, pp. 76-97.

8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), June 29, 2018, Item 13.1.

9 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.8.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

13 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.

14 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 212

Citation: 2019 RLLR 212
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 14, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Chantal Ianniciello
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06478
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003695-003698

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and her minor daughter, the joined claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as citizens of Egypt who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).1 The claimants’ identities have been established by copies of their passports.2

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The principal claimant is a XXXX-year-old woman who is a victim of gender-based persecution, namely domestic violence. The principal claimant fears gender-based persecution for her daughter, namely female genital mutilation (FGM); her daughter is XXXX years old. The claimants left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. The claimant was subject to an arranged marriage on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2008. The claimant describes life with her ex-husband as a “living hell,” including daily beatings and verbal abuse. The claimant was able to escape to Qatar for a time, but was not able to regularize her immigration status in Qatar. The claimant left Qatar in XXXX 2018. The claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and signed her Basis of Claim (BOC) on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.3 The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution4 in this decision.

DETERMINATION

[3]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act because they would face a serious possibility of gender-based persecution if they return to Egypt.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[4]       The claimants submitted supporting documents, including identity documents and news articles on the prevalence of FGM and violence against women and girls in Egypt.5 The objective evidence supports the claimants’ fear of return to Egypt and indicates that among the most significant human rights abuses in Egypt is violence against women and girls, including sexual violence by military personnel; the evidence further notes that the government did not generally take steps to investigate, prosecute or punish officials who committed human rights abuses.6 The objective evidence also indicates that authorities rarely intervene in domestic violence cases.7 Reports indicate that spousal violence in common in Egypt and there are very few mechanisms in place to protect women and violence against women goes virtually unpunished and there are some reports that authorities are dismissive or abusive to women who report domestic violence.8

[5]       The objective evidence also indicates that the prevalence of FGM in Egypt is high, around 87% and is typically performed between birth and the age of 17.9 The primary reasons for FGM cited are tradition and religion; approximately 90% of the population is Muslim and Islam is the state religion.10 Despite FGM laws, enforcement is still insufficient in Egypt and FGM continues to be carried out by health professionals.11 Finally, Egypt’s human rights crisis continues unabated:

Women and girls continued to face inadequate protection from sexual and gender­ based violence, as well as gender discrimination in law and practice. The absence of measures to ensure privacy and protection of women reporting sexual and gender-based violence continued to be a key factor preventing many women and girls from reporting such offences. Many who did report offences faced harassment and retaliation from the perpetrators or their families. In some cases, state officials and members of parliament blamed victims of sexual violence and attributed the incidents to their “revealing clothing”. In March a young student was attacked and sexually assaulted by a mob in Zagazig city, al-Sharkia governorate. Instead of arresting the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, the Security Directorate in al-Sharkia governorate issued a statement mentioning that by “wearing a short dress” the victim had “caused the mob attack”.12

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative  

[6]       Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel find that there is not adequate operationally effective state protection available to the claimants in their particular circumstances. Further, the panel finds that it is not objectively reasonable to expect the claimants to relocate in Egypt in their particular circumstances as a young single mother with few resources and the absence of state protection available to them. Accordingly, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to them.

CONCLUSION

[7]       For the forgoing reasons, the panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.

(signed)           Kerry Cundal  

January 14, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 1.

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 13, 1996.

5  Exhibit 4.

6  Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, June 29, 2018, Item 2.1.

7  Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

8  Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.5 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY104706.E.

9  Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 5.7.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 211

Citation: 2019 RLLR 211
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 18, 2019
Panel: J. Schmalzbauer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jessica Lipes
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06403
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-06404, VB8-06405, VB8-6406
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003624-003629

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “associate claimant”), as citizens of Egypt, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “minor children”) who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act” or IRPA).1

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the adult claimants put forth in the Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.2 The principal claimant had submitted that for his entire life he and his family have been victims of racial discrimination due to their identities as Nubians. The principal claimant detailed in his narrative having been repeated harassed by authorities and arrested, detained and threatened to stop what he was doing in asking for the rights of his people, including land rights. The principal claimant and the associate claimant were married in 2014 but he was unable to acquire residency rights for his wife in Qatar where he had been working for over a decade. The adult claimants had their first child in the United States (U.S.), they had made attempts to remain in the U.S. through immigration channels but returned to Egypt and Qatar in 2015.

[3]       Their second child, was conceived in XXXX. The associate claimant became scared about being forced to circumcise her daughter as is custom. The principal claimant was laid off from his position in Qatar and the family again travelled to the U.S., where their daughter was born.

DETERMINATION

[4]       The panel finds that the adult claimants are Convention refugees, as they do have a well- founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Egypt.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[5]       The panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that the adult claimants are nationals of Egypt, considering the certified copies of their Egyptian passports.3

Credibility

[6]       The duty of this panel is to find if there is sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimants would be persecuted if they returned to Egypt.

[7]       The principal claimant was questioned as to his political opinions and beliefs and he was genuine and credible as to his political knowledge, and I find that more likely than not that these are deeply held beliefs and concerns and that he has a right to share those opinions and belief. The claimant submitted Facebook posts from 2011 onwards regarding the political situation in Egypt.4 Overall, I accept that the claimants are of Nubian descent and that the principal claimant has been repeatedly targeted for discrimination, including political repression for his identity and political opinion as an Egyptian of Nubian descent.

[8]       According to the World Dictionary of Indigenous and Minority Peoples for Egypt 2017:

Frustration has mounted for Egypt’s ethnic minority Nubian community, culminating on 2 January 2017 in the first ever arrest of Nubian activists in direct relation to their struggle against the state. Six were charged with gathering illegally, protesting without a permit, and attacking security forces, after being detained by police on their way to protest a new presidential decree concerning land ownership. They sought to voice opposition to Presidential Decrees 355 and 498, issued in August and November, which stipulate the confiscation of 1,100 acres of land and could yield a new wave of forced evictions of Nubians already forcibly uprooted from their historical homeland with the construction of the Aswan High Dam in the 1960s. A sit-in demonstration in late November 2016 succeeded in pressuring the government into negotiations and Nubian activists and civil society organizations threatened to pursue international arbitration, but suspended their campaign to allow the state to resolve the issue.5

[9]       In the U.S. DOS report, that Nubians face discrimination, harassment. It speaks of the political arrests and the resulting protests.6

[10]     Further country condition evidence before the panel further supports his allegations of political repression:

A February 2017 Reuters article states that “[h]uman rights groups estimate [that] about 40,000 people have been detained for political reasons” since Morsi was deposed Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report for 2017 similarly indicates that civil society organizations “estimate that as many as [40,000] people were being detained for political reasons as of 2016, most of them for real or suspected links to the Muslim Brotherhood”[…]In its 2016 report entitled Egypt: ‘Officially, You Do Not Exist’: Disappeared and Tortured in the Name of Counter-terrorism, Amnesty International states that a “pattern of abuse” that includes arbitrary arrests, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances by state agents became “particularly evident since March 2015[…]According to lawyers involved in their cases, around 90% of those who are subjected to enforced disappearance are subsequently processed through the criminal justice system on charges such as planning or participating in unauthorized protests or attacking members of the security forces.”7

[11]     Currently the situation is devolving for those individuals wanted by authorities for questioning on their political or imputed political opinion given the new Emergency Law.

While the exact details of the Emergency Law and how it will be applied were unclear at the publication date, it is likely that the military will be granted extended powers. DFAT assesses that detentions and arrests are likely to increase as a result of the declaration of a nation-wide state of emergency. Sisi also proposed the establishment of a Supreme Council to combat Terrorism and extremism, which would consider new powers for police and intelligence investigators and allow for the fast-tracking of terrorism cases through the court system.8

[12]     Further evidence submitted by the claimants further supports the increasing repression from the state against Nubian activists.9

[13]     The principal claimant has been active on social media, and according to the International Journal of Not for-Profit Law:

Egypt’s parliament preliminarily approved the cybercrime draft law on May 14, 2018. The draft “Anti- Cyber and Information Technology Crimes Law” primarily targets the illegal use of private data and other crimes that can take place online, but some of its provisions use broad terminology that could be used to penalize lawful online expression and shutter independent media outlets.10

Concerns have been raised of the authorities’ capacity and legal ability to target and silence online dissent from the new law.

[14]     The principal claimant, which I accept, was arrested and interrogated due to his political opinions. The principal claimant submitted evidence of his online posts against the political situation which the panel has found to be credible. I do find that the risk of loss of liberty is a serious infringement on the human right to liberty and personal integrity. Given the objective evidence of the situation of similarly situated persons, and the claimants’ evidence of having been previously sought, I find that there is more than a serious possibility of political persecution for the claimant throughout Egypt.

State Protection

[15]     State protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case, as the particular agent of harm is the state authorities. The country condition evidence supports that many citizens are deprived of their rights of due process, are arrested without warrants, face harassment and physical and psychological abuse from officials throughout Egypt.11

Internal Flight Alternative

[16]     The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. There is no obligation for the claimants to be in hiding. The state has control of its territories and has used state authorities in order to intimidate the claimant. The principal claimant’s profile is to such a level that it would more likely than not continue to cause the claimant to be persecuted throughout Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[17]     For the foregoing reasons the panel finds that, principal and associate claimants are Convention refugees as set out in section 96. Therefore, their claims are accepted.

U.S. Born Minor Children  

[18]     The principal claimant acted as the designated representative for the minor children. No evidence was adduced and no submissions were made against the U.S. as a country of persecution or risk.

[19]     I find that no evidence was adduced that the minor claimants would face a serious possibility of harm amounting to persecution, or that they would on a balance of probabilities, face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture whether under section 96 or section 97(1) of IRPA. Since the minor claimants have adduced no evidence of a risk of return to the U.S., their claims for refugee protection are rejected.

(signed)           J. Schmalzbauer        

April 18, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 2.

3 Exhibit 1.

4 Exhibit 4, Item 5.

5  Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, March 29, 2019, Item 12.2.

6 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

7 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.5 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105804.E.

8 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1 .8.

9 Exhibit 4.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 4.2.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 210

Citation: 2019 RLLR 210
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 13, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ronaldo Yacoub
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-12354
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-12373, TB7-12379
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003355-003358

[1]       MEMBER: We are back on the record and the interpreter has been dismissed. I am going to give a decision at this time and there’s no further questions, as I said before, needed from counsel or submissions, and I’m prepared at this time — and counsel has waived translation, the claimants are both present at this time.

[2]       This decision is being rendered orally in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the principal file is TB7-12354, and the adult claimants are present today and the father is the designated representative with respect to the minor child, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the father is the principal claimant here.

[3]       Now, the gender guidelines at Guideline 4 have been also considered with respect to the female claimant for both Egypt and Libya.

[4]       This decision is being rendered orally today and a written form of these reasons may be edited for syntax, spelling, grammar, references to the applicable case law, legislation and exhibits may also be included.

[5]       I find that the principal claimant is a citizen of Libya and of Egypt. The female claimant is a citizen of Egypt, and the minor child, claimant, is a citizen of Egypt.

[6]       Now, with respect to, and I concluded this based on the certified true copies of their passports which were provided in Exhibit 1, as well as by their testimony and birth certificates provided as well, so therefore on a balance of probabilities I have concluded that the principal claimant has full citizenship, that of Libya and Egypt, the female claimant only of Egypt, and the minor child has the citizenship of Egypt.

[7]       In this case, I find that you are all persons in need of protection, which you have made a claim against — or, sorry, pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have considered the issue of nexus, which is whether you have — your fear or persecution is linked or connected to the convention grounds. I have found that it is not connected to the convention grounds in your countries of nationality, given that it would be with respect to Ms XXXXin Libya, but she’s not making a claim — she’s not a citizen of Libya, therefore… I’ll break this down slower.

[8]       With respect to Libya, let’s start with Libya. The principal claimant fears the militias as they have in the past tried to extort him and have him pay. They know he had a business, a successful business/store, and they were trying to get money from him. In Libya there is much — the militias are divided by tribes as well. He has spoken how he was living in his tribal area of Benghazi. They tried to extort him, he was injured in a shelling and lost his leg on that occasion. His family — he lived there with his wife and child, and they lived there until 2013 when the war became unbearable and when the militias were threatening him. So he fled to Egypt where he had citizenship there as well.

[9]       He also has been in contact with his family members who live in Libya and who tell him that the militias keep asking about him and want to know where he is, and they advise him not to return.

[10]     Because you have another country of citizenship, Mr. XXXX, I am not making any conclusion about your claim against Libya, I am then going to look at your situation in Egypt, and that is where also your wife and child have their citizenship. So I’m not drawing a conclusion with respect to whether you would be at risk in Libya, but just to say that I see that you would, you would face risk there. Part of the reason it the country situation in Libya, and I just want to speak briefly about that situation before I leave the whole topic of Libya.

[11]     If you face the problems with the militias, you would not be able to obtain any type of protection from government or the state to help you. Libya is currently in a state of civil war, there is no unified government or standardized method of delivering any type of security services. There’s an uncertainty with respect to the political and security situation, and this situation leads me to conclude that there would be no state protection for you if you were there with your family, none for your family, and there would not be an internal flight alternative available to you as well.

[12]     Furthermore, if your wife were there she would be at risk of gender-related persecution, as war — unfortunately, rape is rampant in war, and she would be at risk of that, so of sexual assault.

[13]     The position of the United Nations suggests that internal flight is not reasonably available in Libya, therefore now I look to Egypt.

[14]     The situation with the family in Egypt, according to the allegations in the basis of claim form, which I won’t repeat, basically the principal claimant’s first wife, as he had the two wives, and they were concurrent at one point until he divorced the first wife, that that was legal in Egypt. The problem was despite the first wife agreeing that he could take on the second wife, XXXX XXXX, she later changed her mind and then she had her brothers, there are seven of them, cause false threats and assaults against the principal claimant, threats against his wife, and there was a threat on kidnapping their son, XXXX, in order to retaliate or make the principal claimant suffer for his having scorned her or for having taken a second wife.

[15]     Now, this brings us to the issue. So this is where there’s no nexus to the convention definition, I believe. This is where what you fear, what your whole family fears, is not — I believe it’s a personal life risk, but it is not a nexus because there’s no convention ground that will, in my opinion, cover this.

[16]     However, on a balance of probabilities, which is the threshold I have to use, I find that there is, on a balance of probabilities, a personalized risk to your lives in Egypt. There’s also no state protection, in my opinion, given that your ex-wife’s brother worked in XXXX XXXX department in Egypt. If he were merely a government employee perhaps it wouldn’t be the same. But given that        you’ve provided evidence by way of your testimony and your belief that he is an XXXX XXXX XXXX and the documentary material is clear with respect to the human rights situation deteriorating in Egypt where many human rights groups have spoken out against how the government in Egypt has, on many occasions, basically — it is respecting the human rights of the citizens.

[17]     The authorities in Egypt arbitrarily restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, any opposition to them is basically taken in for questioning and they will not tolerate anyone being in any type of opposition to the government or expressing it in anyway.

[18]     But apart from that, the question is on the street level, would the police protect you? You’ve testified how this brother, how police officers were even present at the assault when you were stabbed, Mr. XXXX. Now, that’s not to say all the police are corrupt or would do that, but given the fact that the documentary material speaks about that there’s a very high level of corruption in Egypt and that this brother who is one of the persons who has been threatening your family, given that he is also in the XXXX XXXX and the documentary material makes it clear, in my opinion, that a person who has those types of connections, with the corruption that is rampant in Egypt, can accomplish harming you if you were to try to go elsewhere.

[19]     So I don’t believe there’s an internal flight alternative for you and your family and I don’t believe that the state will adequately and effectively protect the three of you if you were to try to get help against them. You did file a report against them and the report, which is in evidence, didn’t go anywhere. If anything, the other family filed counter-charges against you, for which you’ve testified that you were then having to appear in court.

[20]     The documentary material also speaks about prolonged detention for people in Egypt, sometimes without charges or without a trial, and how the Egyptian authorities have misused many of their powers against their own citizens, according to many human rights groups throughout the world.

[21]     So for all of these reasons, I find on a balance of probabilities that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, that you are all persons in need of protection under Section 97(1) because your life is at risk in Egypt. Therefore, these three claims are now allowed.

[22]     Thank you. 

[23]     CLAIMANTS: Thank you.

[24]     MEMBER: Do you understand? Have a good day. Thank you, counsel.

– – – UPON RECESSING – – –

– – – UPON RESUMING – – –

[25]     MEMBER: We’re back on the record. I just wanted to comment and say with respect to credibility, I had my concerns with respect to certain omissions, and I considered them a lot throughout the hearing, and I found your explanations reasonable for why these omissions occurred. You did mention them, they were mentioned as attacks in the basis of claim form. The only thing is that they were not — you did not provide the dates specifically. But you did mention them. I understand and I found your explanations reasonable for you, Ms XXXX, because they were very painful to talk about and to put down and for you, sir, because you didn’t have the proof, you only had the proof of one, and you did mention it and it is in your evidence.

[26]     So overall — and I found that this doctor’s letter explaining that you have XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX helps me to understand why you kind of would not answer my questions. I don’t believe you were trying to be evasive.

[27]     So, for all of these reasons, I have accepted your credibility, and therefore your allegations. That’s why I’ve also accepted you as persons in need of protection.

[28]     This hearing is now concluded. Thank you and good day to all.

– – – DECISION CONCLUDED – – –

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 207

Citation: 2019 RLLR 207
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 25, 2019
Panel: Camille Theberge Ménard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Melissa Singer
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB9-05861
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003114-003121

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is an Egyptian citizen. She is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2]       According to her account, the claimant fears for her life should she return to Egypt because of death threats received from her mother and her paternal uncle, who wish to restore the family honour.

[3]       Throughout the hearing and its analysis, the panel took into account and applied Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (November 1996)1 and Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB.2

DETERMINATION

[4]       In response to a request from the claimant’s counsel, the panel found that the claimant was a vulnerable person within the meaning of the Chairperson’s Guideline 8. No particular procedural accommodations were requested other than applying the Guideline requirements. The panel notes that only women were present in the hearing room and that the panel took care to adopt an informal approach.

[5]       The panel determines that the claimant is a “Convention refugee” for the reasons set out below.

ALLEGATIONS

[6]       The claimant’s full allegations can be found in her response to question 2 of her Basis of Claim Form and the attached appendices.3 Here is a brief summary.

[7]       The claimant comes from a traditional Muslim family that she describes as very conservative. She states that, when she was eight or nine years old, her mother forced her to submit to female genital mutilation.

[8]       The claimant was married, in a marriage arranged by her family, in 2013. However, in 2017, her husband decided to divorce her, despite her mother’s entreaties that he remain married to the claimant.

[9]       After her divorce, the claimant realized that she was pregnant and decided to return to Cairo to find a solution to secure some of her investments.

[10]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant had to make an emergency visit to a physician, who had to terminate her pregnancy. A few days later, the claimant went to the United States for four months. She returned to Cairo believing that she would be able to carry on with her life as usual.

[11]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, a neighbour who had seen the claimant’s physician and learned that she had had to terminate a pregnancy called her family’s home to find out how she was doing.

[12]     After learning this, the claimant’ s mother and uncle beat her violently and forcibly confined her from that moment on in the family home. The claimant’s uncle threatened to inflict more serious injuries on her for having, in his opinion, dishonoured the family, implying that she deserved to die.

[13]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, a friend of the claimant’s helped her escape from her home.

[14]     During the night of XXXX XXXXtoXXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant took a flight to the United States.

[15]     Upon arriving in the United States, she claimed asylum and was detained by the American authorities.

[16]     The claimant was successful in her credible fear interview and was in a state of shock; she was not released until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.

[17]     On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the claimant arrived in Canada illegally and signed this claim for refugee protection on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.

[18]     She alleges that no state protection is available to her in Egypt and that she has no internal flight alternative (IFA) because of her family’s connections with the police.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[19]     The claimant’s identity and the country of reference were established on the basis of her testimony and the documents filed, including a copy of her Egyptian passport contained in the record.4

Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[20]     The panel examined whether this claim could meet the criteria of section 96 of the IRPA. The claimant fears being killed because of her family members’ religious and cultural beliefs, according to which she dishonoured her family by becoming pregnant out of wedlock. Her fear is therefore connected to her status as a woman from a Muslim family.

[21]     There is a nexus to one of the five Convention grounds, namely, membership in a particular social group, that of women in Egypt, as well as religion, because of her failure to comply with certain Islamic religious precepts.

Credibility and serious possibility of persecution

[22]     The panel finds that the claimant testified in a credible manner throughout the hearing. The panel did not identify any major, determinative contradictions or any omissions regarding the important elements of the reasons she fears being persecuted should she return to Egypt.

[23]     The claimant was able to explain the events she alleged and respond to the panel’s various concerns. Throughout the hearing, the claimant was very emotional and was visibly quite troubled by the situation and her experiences since leaving Egypt.

[24]     Despite the many events described in her account and the panel’s deconstructed approach to asking questions, the claimant was able to respond to the panel’ s questions in a satisfactory manner. She also had no trouble explaining certain inconsistencies arising from the written version of her account.

[25]     The claimant filed various documents in support of her allegations.

[26]     The first is a sworn statement from the friend who supported her and helped her escape from her family home on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, after she had been forcibly confined there for about a week.5

[27]     The next is a statement from another old friend of the claimant’s, in whom she had confided about the domestic abuse she had suffered at the hands of her mother and uncle for several years.6 She also produced a statement from her brother describing the moment when he and the claimant’s parents had returned to the family home and discovered that the claimant had fled.7 He also confirmed the history of family violence to which the claimant’s mother and uncle had subjected her for years.

[28]     The panel did not identify any credibility issues with these documents, which were submitted along with identity documents for each of the authors. In the circumstances, the panel grants each of them the appropriate probative value.

[29]     The objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations that women are victims of violence when they defy religious precepts that are often imposed by their families and sanctioned by society at large. First, according to the sources consulted, it appears that the simple fact of not wearing a veil, when one is from a Muslim family and in society in general, may lead to daily harassment.8 Some sources indicate that “violence against women seems to be socially legitimized and surrounded by a [UN English version] ‘culture of silence’.”9

[30]     Honour crimes, as defined by United Nations expert groups, remain relatively socially accepted in Egypt and are seemingly still a common practice within the most traditional families.10

[31]     For these reasons, the panel gives credence to the claimant’s allegations and concludes that, if she were to return to Egypt, she would face a serious possibility of being persecuted by her mother or her uncle for disobeying certain Islamic religious precepts.

State protection and internal flight alternative

[32]     The panel concludes that the claimant has rebutted the presumption and would not have access to adequate state protection in Egypt, in light of the objective documentation on the country.

[33]     The documentary evidence indicates not only that there is no particular prohibition condemning domestic violence against women, but also that, while domestic violence may fall under certain provisions of the penal code relating to bodily harm, various procedural impediments render such provisions ineffective for all practical purposes.

[34]     In practice, it appears that prosecutions are extremely rare and that it is even fairly complicated to file a complaint with the police as a basis for prosecution.11

[35]     Thus, impunity surrounding violence against women is an ongoing issue,12 to the point that Foreign Affairs states that a woman who wants to report a harassment incident to police “is required by law to catch her attacker and bring him and two other witnesses to the police” (Foreign Affairs 27 Jan. 2014). The same source quotes a representative from HarassMap as saying that women “regularly ‘have to fight with the police to actually make the report, in the street, and at the police station'”.13

[36]     Moreover, with respect to honour crimes, it is indicated that the provisions of the penal code do not protect victims:

Though the Penal Code is the primary law for the prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women including “honour killings”, in practice it often serves as a means to mitigate punishment. As noted above, Article 17 of the Penal Code provides broad judicial discretion to reduce sentencing in circumstances where leniency is “necessitated”. Judges have found “honour killings” to be “justified” on the basis that the victim allegedly violated prevailing social values or brought shame to the family. Article 237 of the Penal Code specifically enables judges to lower the sentencing in murders prompted by adultery.14

[37]     The panel also examined the question of whether a reasonable IFA exists for the claimant in Egypt. The objective evidence does not show that the situation for people in the same circumstances as the claimant is different in other parts of the country.

[38]     Furthermore, the claimant stated that her father is ex-military, her uncle is a former government secret intelligence officer, two of her mother’s cousins are ex-military, and some of their children are former police officers and two are presently working as police officers. The claimant managed to obtain a copy of an identity document belonging to her father establishing that he was formerly a member of the military.15

[39]     The documentary evidence clearly indicates that corruption and nepotism are problems within the national police service16 and that corruption is an ongoing problem among law enforcement officials. A document entitled “Fighting corruption or protecting the regime? Egypt’s Administrative Control Authority” written in February 2019 contains the following passage:

But state corruption hardly ended with Mubarak’s ouster. Fraudulent self-enrichment by high level and lower-level officials alike remains widespread across the vast bureaucracy. Many Egyptians say they have to pay a bribe to receive government services. Donors continue to point to corruption as an obstacle to foreign investment and economic development. Transparency International said of the situation in 2018, “very few improvements exist on the ground” and “serious corruption issues are currently challenging the country.”17

[40]     In the circumstances, the panel concludes on a balance of probabilities that, if the claimant were to return to her country, her agents of persecution would have an interest in locating her anywhere in the country and would have the capacity to do so. Accordingly, no IFA is available to her.

Conclusion

[41]     In light of the foregoing, and after reviewing all the evidence, the panel determines that the claimant has discharged her burden of establishing that she would face a “serious possibility” of persecution on a Convention ground if she were to return to Haiti. The panel concludes that she would not have access to state protection in Egypt or to a viable IFA.

[42]     For these reasons, the refugee protection claim is allowed.

(signed)           Camille Théberge Ménard

October 25, 2019

1 Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. Effective date: November 13, 1996.

2 Chairperson’s Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB. Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protecton Act. Effective date: December 15, 2006. Amended: December 15, 2012.

3 Document 1 – Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC);

Document 2 – Basis of Claim Form.

4 Document 1 – Information package provided by CBSA/IRCC.

5 Document 6 – Exhibit C-2: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s friend, XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX2019.

6 Document 6 – Exhibit C-3: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s friend, XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX 2019.

7 Document 6 – Exhibit C-4: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s brother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX-2019.

8 Document 3 – Archive – National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 5.1: Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105005.E, November 26, 2014, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

9 Document 3 – Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 5.5: RIR EGY104706.FE, December 23, 2013, IRB.

10 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present. Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt. Equal Rights Trust. December 2018, at page 232/399.

11 Document 3 – Supra, footnote 9.

12 Document 3 –Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 2.1: Egypt. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. March 13, 2019. Pages 41 to 45.

13 Document 3 – Supra, footnote 8. At page 5/8.

14 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present. Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt. Equal Rights Trust. December 2018. At page 232/399.

15 Document 6 – Exhibit C-7: Duly translated National Identity Document of the claimant’s father, XXXX XXXX.

16 Document 3 – Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 9.5: The State of the Justice and Security Sector in Egypt. Migrationsverket. Lifos. September 10, 2015. At pages 41 et seq.

17 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 7.4: Fighting Corruption Or Protecting The Regime? Egypt’s Administrative Control Authority. Project on Middle East Democracy. Jessica Noll. February 2019.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 206

Citation: 2019 RLLR 206
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 21, 2019
Panel: Douglas Cryer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): El-farouk Khaki
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06095
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002994-002998

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).1

[2]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims2 and subsection 170(f) of the Act.

[3]       In deciding the claim, the panel has considered all of the evidence before it including the Basis of Claim (BOC) form,3 the referral documents,4 the country of origin information contained within the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt5 and the claimant’s documentary evidence.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the claimant put forth in the BOC.6 The claimant alleges that as a gay male, he will be persecuted if he returns to Egypt. In 2011, the claimant made contact with someone through a social media App, wherein they engaged in a sexual relationship. Immediately afterwards, four of his partner’s friend came into the room and physically assaulted him and threated to inform his family unless he paid extortion. He was able to escape and in an ensuing confrontation, the police intervened and the claimant, along with his abusers, were detained overnight. The claimant was subject to an anal exam to “prove” that he was not homosexual. The claimant escaped Egypt by finding employment in Saudi Arabia. The claimant returned to Egypt in 2018. Shortly thereafter, he met someone on social media, they had sex and then his sexual partner took out a knife and threatened the claimant. Eventually, the claimant fled to Canada wherein he made his claim for refugee protection on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.

DETERMINATION

[5]       The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt is established by his sworn statement in his Basis of Claim form and the certified copy of the Egyptian passport on file.7

Nexus

[7]       In rendering this decision, the panel has considered the claimant’s sexual orientation as a gay male. Accordingly, the panel finds there is a nexus between the claimant’s sexual orientation and his fear of returning to Egypt since he has membership in a particular social group.

Credibility

[8]       The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the “Board”) presumes claimants are telling the truth, which is a rebuttable presumption. The panel is allowing this claim primarily on facts that are self-evident. Additionally, the claimant provided corroborative documents to establish country conditions relating to people fearing SOGIE-related persecution.8 Additionally, the claimant provided numerous documents to substantiate his sexual orientation.9

Objective Basis

[9]       It is apparent from the country condition documents that the government of Egypt has an extremely poor human rights record, and as per the United States (U.S.) Department of State (DOS) report for Egypt for 2017:

The most significant human rights issues included arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; major terrorist attacks; disappearances; torture; harsh or potentially life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; including the use of military courts to try civilians; political prisoners and detainees; unlawful interference in privacy; limits on freedom of expression, including criminal “defamation of religion” laws; restrictions on the press, internet, and academic freedom; and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and association, including government control over registration and financing of NGOs. LGBTI persons faced arrests, imprisonment, and degrading treatment. The government did not effectively respond to violence against women, and there were reports of child labor.

The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity.

Attacks by terrorist organizations caused arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life. Terrorist groups conducted deadly attacks on government, civilian, and security targets throughout the country, including places of worship and public transportation. Authorities investigated terrorist attacks.10

[l0]      Furthermore, elsewhere in the document, the U.S. DOS report indicates “that the government did not consistently implement the law effectively, and officials sometimes engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.”11

[11]     A Board document, Egypt. State-Sponsored Homophobia,12 states that “sexual relations between consenting adult persons of the same sex in private are not prohibited in Egyptian law. However, as recorded the Law on the Combating of Prostitution, and the law against debauchery have been used liberally to imprison gay men in recent years.” Offenses include detention of not less than six months to a maximum of five years.

[12]     Another Board document, Egypt. Dignity Debased,13 includes first-hand accounts of undignified and debased treatment of accused by security officials. The documents states that since 2013 there have been increased arrests and harassment of people perceived to be gay or transgender.

[13]     The panel finds the risk of persecution for the claimant in Egypt well founded due to his sexual orientation.

State Protection

[14]     As the agents of persecution that would target the claimant are the government authorities of his country conducting inherently persecutory acts, the panel does not find it would be reasonable for the claimant to seek state protection from persecution in his country of nationality.

Internal Flight Alternative

[15]     It would be unreasonable to assess an internal flight alternative anywhere in Egypt given the lack of adequate security protection in that country.

CONCLUSION

[16]     The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his application for protection.

(signed)           DOUGLAS CRYER  

JANUARY 21, 2019

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

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

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Exhibit 1.

5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, June 29, 2018.

6 Exhibit 2.

7 Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 – Certified copy of Passport.

8 Exhibit 4.

9 Exhibit 5.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 6.1.

13 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 6.2.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 204

Citation: 2019 RLLR 204
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 11, 2019
Panel: Miryam Molgat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Larry W Smeets
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-02869
Associated RPD Number(s): VB8-02882, VB8-02883
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002857-002873

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “claimant” aka “the principal claimant” aka “the mother”), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the associated claimant” aka ” the son” aka “the male claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the associated claimant” aka “the daughter”) 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 (IRPA).1

DETERMINATION

[2]       The panel finds that the principal claimant and the male claimant are not Convention refugees as they do not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Egypt. The panel also finds that the principal claimant and the male claimant are not persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA.

[3]       The panel finds that the daughter is a Convention refugee as she does have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Egypt. Its reasons are as follows:

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The claimants’ complete allegations are set out in the Basis of Claim Form (BOC)2 and need not be repeated here in detail.

[5]       To summarize briefly, the principal claimant is a woman born in XXXX. She is a long- time resident of Saudi Arabia. She came to Canada with her two minor children. She came because she feared female genital mutilation and/or forced marriage being imposed on her minor daughter, the associated claimant. She feared this might happen at the hands of her in-laws, who she describes as a very conservative, powerful and influential family in Egypt. She describes her mother in law and her four children as fanatic Sunni Muslims. The in-laws, upon learning that the daughter had reached puberty, demanded that she undergo Female genital mutilations (FGM) so that she could marry after the procedure. The principal claimant underwent FGM as a child. The claimant also fears that her minor children might be abducted as there is a problem in Egypt with human organs sold on the black market.

[6]       In Egypt, the principal claimant still has her mother, and three brothers and a sister, all residing in Cairo.

[7]       The claimants also allege fear of risk to their lives, risk of torture or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment at the hands of the same agent of harm.

[8]       The claimants allege that neither state protection nor safe and reasonable internal flight alternatives are available in their country of nationality.

Chairperson’s Guidelines

[9]       In coming to this determination, the panel has considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution3 and in particular, Part D, which addresses special problems faced by women in demonstrating that their claims are trustworthy and credible at determination hearings. Sorne of the factors noted include cross­ cultural misunderstandings and violence-related trauma. The panel has considered these guidelines while assessing questions regarding subjective fear in the claim of the female claimants. Reasons for drawing on these guidelines include objective country conditions evidence and how they relate to the claimant herself at the time of the hearing. The panel has also considered Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues4 in coming to a decision in the claims of the minors.

ANALYSIS

[10]     The main issues are credibility and subjective fear and Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).

DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE

[11]     The principal claimant was appointed as Designated Representative for the two associated claimants, who are both minors.

Identity

[12]     The claimants’ identities and citizenship have been established by the testimony and supporting documentation filed and entered in these proceedings. The passports are on file,5 along with other documents.

Nexus

[13]     For the claimants to be Convention refugees, the fear of persecution must be “by reason of’ one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition. In other words they must have a well- founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

[14]     The panel finds that the harm feared by the daughter is by reason of membership in particular social group as females fearing female genital mutilation and/or forced marriage. For the mother, the nexus is membership in a particular social group as a female seeking to prevent FGM and/or forced marriage of her minor daughter. The panel finds that the harm feared by the son is also by reason of one of the five grounds enumerated in the Convention refugee definition, namely membership in a particular social group, in this case, family member of his mother and sister, whose nexus is gender-based.

Credibility

[15]     When credibility is assessed there are two principles that are followed. Firstly, when a claimant swears to the truthfulness of certain facts there is a presumption that what he is saying is true unless there is reason to doubt it.6 Secondly, when assessing credibility the panel is entitled to rely on rationality and common sense.7 The determination as to whether a claimant’s evidence is credible is made on a balance of probabilities.

[16]     The panel accepts that the principal claimant has undergone FGM and that she is opposed to her minor daughter being submitted to it. The panel accepts that the claimants are unable to return to Saudi Arabia to live and work. This matters as it means that their claims must be assessed in the context of Egypt only. The evidence on the possibility of return to Saudi Arabia was inconsistent as the husband, in his testimony, said the principal claimant’s work position has been “saudified”. This is not what the principal claimant said, as she testified that her husband’s position had been “saudified” and that, as a result, her own status in Saudi Arabia was in peril. Either way, the panel accepts that the claimants cannot return to Saudi Arabia to live and work.

[17]     The principal claimant’s evidence on the year of the fateful trip to Egypt and resulting kidnapping in Cairo was inconsistent. She orally confirmed her oral testimony that the year of the trip was 2017. When it was put to her that her BOC says it was in 2016, her explanation was that she had noticed it when completing the BOC and had told the BOC interpreter to correct it. When asked why, then, she affirmed a non-corrected BOC of which she said she knew the contents, the claimant said that it was because the BOC interpreter told her he had corrected the error. The claimant also suggested that the panel ask the BOC interpreter about the matter. It is the claimant’s responsibility to establish the elements of her claim, not the panel’s. The claimant offered to get proof from the BOC interpreter that he had made this mistake, but she failed to do so. This is in spite of the resumption in the hearing being set after this initial testimony was taken. The panel draws a negative inference, finding that this is a material inconsistency which is not reasonably explained. This matters as the claimant repeatedly stated that the problems with her in-laws began around the end of 2016 or early 2017, when her daughter had her first menstrual period. The panel draws a negative inference and finds she would have gotten the year right if it had happened as alleged.

[18]     This inconsistency relating to the year of the trip to Egypt also matters as the claimant, when asked why, if she knew, as alleged, by the XXXX of 2017, that her in-laws intended to forcibly perform FGM on the daughter and marry her off, why she decided to go to Egypt a few months later with her daughter. The principal claimant’s explanation was that she needed to process the renewal of her work visa. She also said that her mother was ill and she needed to go see her. The panel finds this is insufficient explanation for a lack of subjective fear demonstrated by the claimant’s re-availment to Egypt, the daughter’s in the XXXX of 2017 and/or the XXXX following her first menstrual period. This is all the more damaging to the claims given that the claimant had a US visa issued in XXXX 2016 which she could have used to travel to the USA instead of going to Egypt in the summer.

[19]     The fact that the claimant did travel to the USA in XXXX 2016, on her US visa issued in XXXX 2016, is damaging to the claim as, if the panel accepts, for the sake of analysis, that the threat to perform FGM on the daughter was made in the XXXX of 2016, then it begs the question of why the claimant failed to make an asylum claim in the USA and why she returned to Saudi Arabia, to then travel later that summer, or the following summer, to Egypt. Either way, even if the panel were to accept that, in fact, the abduction of the daughter took place in XXXX 2016 and not 2017, the principal claimant’s behavior is problematic and raises significant credibility and subjective fear issues. The panel finds that the inconsistency in the timing of the abduction of the daughter, be it in 2016 or 2017, is problematic either way. That is the case because the claimant chose to return to Egypt with her daughter after learning of her in-laws’ intentions against her daughter. It is also because, if the claimant learned this in early 2016, it leaves the question of why she herself failed to make an asylum claim in the USA when there in XXXX 2016. As seen in these Reasons, the claimant’s explanation for this failure to claim in the USA was problematic. This is significant as the claimant alleges that her own life is at risk as a result of her in-laws’ intentions.

[20]     The panel finds that the claimant has not established that her in-laws have the ongoing motivation and capacity to harm her or her daughter or her son. The reason for this is that the claimants spent 4-5 days after threats uttered against them, after the principal claimant went to the police right after picking up her daughter from her sister in law XXXX home, where the daughter was being forcibly prepared for FGM. This gives the agents of persecution plenty of reason to want to harm or re-abduct the daughter, and to carry out their threats against the principal claimant. Instead, the in-laws did not harm the claimants, who remained in the claimants’ family home for four to five days. The principal claimant confirmed that the in-laws knew where she was at his time. During that time, there was no physical interference, no reported physical contact at all, and the claimants were able to leave Egypt for Saudi Arabia in a normal fashion without their exit or freedom of movement being otherwise impeded. In addition, the principal claimant was able to go about dealing with the paperwork required to renew her work permit in Saudi Arabia without being impeded. Presumably, that required her physical presence. The panel finds that, if the agents of persecution were intent on harming the claimants, they would have done so. That is because they knew their location during these four to five days. The claimant alleges that, during those four or five days, her in-laws went to her family home, saying to her: “who do you think you are?” They also allegedly threatened her by saying that they can reach her at any point in any way. The panel finds that this was an empty threat, which the in-laws did not act on in spite of the opportunity to do so. The panel accepts that the in-laws harbor ill will towards the claimant, but the panel finds that does not mean that they will act on it. This is all the more so given that the claimant had gotten her way, by securing her daughter, taking her away from her aunt Iman’s home, and committing the affront of reporting the matter to the police. Surely this would warrant more than empty threats from someone intent on carrying out the threat and/or imposing FGM on the daughter and/or killing the principal claimant for her opposition to such things being perpetrated on her daughter.

[21]     The panel finds that the claimant has not established that her in-laws have the power or influence which she attributes to them. She testified that she knows they have influence because they do not let her out of her sight. She also testified that, according to tradition, they have all the habits and influence. This is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence. It is too vague, and insufficiently grounded in any kind of specific, clear evidence of power or influence which is separate from the claimant’s belief t in its existence. This weakness of the claimant’s evidence exists in spite of repeated questions by the panel bearing on the power and reach and influence of the in-laws. The panel further notes that neither the claimant’s sister nor her husband, in their letters of support in exhibit 4, mention any of this when referring to the in-laws. The sister says that the claimants were chased everywhere by the in-laws. The panel does not take this as evidence of the in-law’s influence or presence throughout Egypt. The claimant alleged that, during the trip to Egypt when her daughter was abducted, she went to XXXX XXXX XXXX, where her in-laws targeted her by telephone. She also alleged that she then went to Cairo, where she was targeted. This, in fact, raises yet more credibility questions regarding why she later went to Cairo, where she knew her in-laws reside. The husband’s relatives appear to have lost interest and have retreated into excommunicating those family members whose behavior or values they reject, such as the husband’s. The panel notes that, in spite of the husband’s family alleged influence, there is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that they have threatened him since breaking off contact with him. This is yet another indication, in the panel’s mind, that his family do not have the motivation and/or capacity to pursue the claimants, given that this ex­ communication directly relates to the claimants.

[22]     The panel finds that the claimant has not established that her in-laws or their clan are present throughout Egypt and/or in XXXX XXXX XXXX. When asked, she said they are present in Assouan, Cairo and perhaps, the Sinai. The panel notes that this is unclear evidence pertaining to the Sinai. The panel finds that the claimant has not established on a balance of probabilities that her in-laws are anywhere except Assouan and Cairo. This matters to the question of the geographical reach of the in-laws, which in turn relates to the question of IFA in XXXX XXXX XXXX. It also matters as it relates to the influence of the in-laws. The claimant has not established that the in-laws have influence outside of Cairo and Assouan.

[23]     The claimant failed to establish with sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that her in-laws have the power and influence in Egyptian society that she alleges. When asked, her answers were vague and circular. The husband’s testimony that his family are a well-established and well-connected, wealthy family with influence is insufficient. That is because, though asked more than once, he failed to provide any specific indication of his family’s influence. This credibility finding matters as it relates to a lack of sufficient evidence which is material to the question of IFA.

[24]     The claimant referred to the registry where she would have to register if she moved to the proposed IFA. The panel accepts the existence of this registry, but does not see how it matters given that the claimant has not established that the agents of harm have the motivation and capacity to seek and/or obtain her personal information through the registry.

[25]     Counsel in his questions tried to establish that the possibility of the husband having ongoing communication with the claimants were in the proposed IFA would pose a risk of serious possibility of persecution to the claimants in the IFA. This, in counsel’s view, would be as a result of his own past wavering position on the question of FGM as it applies to his daughter. Counsel also tried to make the case that the future would yield foreseeable pressure on the husband from the in-laws, implying that the husband would waiver and that this would result in a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants. The panel finds that the counsel has not made out his case in either of these assertions. That is because his views are not supported by sufficient credible and trustworthy evidence. When one looks at what the claimant knows and has experienced, her evidence is different and does not support counsel’s point. That is because the claimant clearly stated more than once in testimony that her husband now shares her position regarding FGM as it applies to the daughter. The claimant clearly stated that there is no flexibility in regard to FGM and the daughter, i.e. that it cannot happen. The claimant said this in the context not of her own personal will, but rather in the context of the couple she forms with her husband. What counsel is suggesting amounts to speculation and, as such, does not merit much weight.

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)

[26]     The following possible IFA was put to the claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX.

First prong: no serious possibility of persecution or no personalised risk under subsection 97(1).

[27]     The panel finds that the proposed IFA, on a balance of probabilities, does not pose a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA as defined in section 96 of IRPA and/or a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture in the IFA – as per subsection 97(1) of IRPA for the claimants. The persecution and/or risk to life envisaged in this section relates to the threats of FGM and/or early or forced marriage on the daughter. This analysis is done on a balance of probabilities. Once the IFA has been identified, the onus of proof that the IFA is not viable is on the claimants. As seen in the above credibility analysis, the claimants have not established that the agents of persecution have the motivation or capacity to track them in the proposed IFA. The agents of persecution had the opportunity to persecute the claimants in Cairo and did not do so. This was in spite of their continued contact at the time with the claimants. In addition, the husband is now a staunch ally of the claimants in regards to their fear of persecution. The claimant described her husband in these terms and he testified accordingly providing evidence which supported the principal claimant’s testimony in this regard. Furthermore, the husband’s relationship with his own family of origin has evolved as they have excommunicated him as a result of his staunch support of the principal claimant against his own family’s wishes. For these reasons, it is not credible that the in-laws would locate the claimants in XXXX XXXX XXXX as there is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that they would seek to do so or know how to do so.

[28]     The principal claimant alleges that, as someone who would oppose any FGM or forcible marriage on her daughter, she herself would be face a serious possibility of persecution. As for the forward-looking risk of FGM for the daughter in the IFA, the country conditions documents speak to a diminishing risk and rate of FGM for her generation.8 Furthermore, there is insufficient credible evidence that anyone other than her father’s family would seek to impose it on the daughter. As that allegation is resolved by an IFA, the principal claimant’s claim on this ground fails. The same can be said for the risk of forced marriage being imposed on the daughter. There is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that the possibility of persecution comes from anyone other than her father’s family. As is the case for FGM, that possibility is undermined by the panel’s finding of an IFA, and its earlier finding of lack of motivation and capacity of the in-laws to locate and harm the claimants in the IFA. In either case, be it FGM or forced marriage, the daughter is shielded in effect from societal risk by her parents’ staunch resolve to prevent that from happening to her. There is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the principal claimant in the IFA. This also impacts any related possibility of persecution for the son based on his membership in the family.

Second prong: IFA is objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances:

[29]     Having considered the conditions in geographic area and all the circumstances of this case, including those particular to the claimants, the panel finds that it is objectively reasonable for the claimants to seek refuge in the proposed IFA for the following reason. Once the IFA has been identified, it is up to the claimants to establish that it is not a viable solution. The claimants have failed to establish that the proposed IFA is not objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances.

RESIDUAL CLAIMS OF THE PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT AND SON

[30]     Although significant and repeated discrimination may amount to persecution, whether or not it rises to the level of persecution depends on the particular circumstances of the case. Persecution is defined as the systematic or sustained or repeated violations of one’s fundamental human rights. When considering whether the principal claimant faces cumulative discrimination amounting to persecution resulting from sexual harassment of women in Egypt, the panel finds that the claimant had an insufficient explanation for why she took the repeated prolonged trips to Egypt if the sexual harassment was problematic for her. This is important as each time she returned to Egypt, she was essentially exposing herself to a risk which she has not alleged as existing in Saudi Arabia, her country of residence at the time. The panel notes that the claimant said she would go to Egypt to visit her family and to renew her Saudi work permit. The trip the claimant took to XXXX XXXX XXXX appears to serve neither of those goals, thus undermining the reasoning that the only reason for her return to Egypt was to see family and renew her work visa. The claimant has also failed to establish why renewing her work permit and seeing her family necessitated lengthy such frequent trips to Egypt. Her passports bear stamps that document trips to Egypt occurring more than once a year on average.9 Given the weak evidence from her in regards to sexual harassment in Egypt, this is inconsistent with a finding that she chose out of necessity to put up with the sexual harassment each time she returned to Egypt.

[31]     The panel also notes that the claimant failed to reasonably explain why she failed to claim asylum when in the US prior to the trip to Egypt when her daughter was abducted. Absent further credible and trustworthy evidence, the claimant’s explanation of anti-Muslim sentiment in the US as a result of the voting in of Mr. Trump as US president cannot stand as a reasonable explanation for her failure to seek asylum in the US at this time on the grounds of sexual harassment in Egypt. That is because, at that time, the US presidential elections had not been held and Mr. Trump was not the anticipated candidate and/or winner of it. The claimant’s lack of subjective fear of the sexual harassment she faced in Egypt also came out of her failure to follow counsel’s lead when questioned on her statement that she had to stay home 24/7 as a result of sexual harassment. Her testimony that she thought of making an asylum claim in the US based on her female gender is undermined by her explanation that the problems did not start until 2017, before which her daughter had not yet reached puberty. Her evidence, when seen as a whole, is insufficient to sustain a positive determination based on a risk of sexual harassment as it applies to her.

[32]     The panel accepts that, as a general rule, women suffer discrimination or harassment in Egypt. In some cases this discrimination or harassment can amount to persecution. The documentary evidence lists the following factors among women: education, wealth, age, marital status, rural versus urban residence, and the specific geographic area of Egypt where the person resides. These factors are described as impacting, among other things: early or forced marriage, exposure to FGM and pro-FGM attitudes, access to education, age at first birth, whether it is a home birth, and access to employment.10 There is also information that the “relative level of participation of women in household decision-making is positively correlated to their age and level of education and wealth”.11 The panel finds that this objective evidence supports a finding that not all women in Egypt face discrimination amounting to persecution, as not all women are equally affected. That is in spite of widespread sexual harassment in the country.

[33]     It was up to the claimant to establish that the sexual harassment and/or other discrimination she faces as a woman in Egypt, when seen cumulatively, rises to the level of persecution in her particular case. She failed to do so. This failure on the part of the claimant is all the more significant given that, as she had lost her long-time status in Saudi Arabia, she was well aware that she faced returning to reside and work in Egypt. This failure on the part of the claimant to establish a case is also all the more significant given that, during the many years she spent residing in Saudi Arabia, she returned regularly to Egypt where she visited family. Her contacts with her family and, presumably, others in Egypt, during these trips, would have given her information and knowledge on the question of sexual harassment and/or discrimination against women beyond her own experiences during those numerous trips. The claimant’s testimony that, as a woman, she had to stay indoors in Egypt “24/7” is insufficient given her insufficient explanations for her lack of subjective fear in the face of this and the previously mentioned credibility issues arising out of her evidence in regard to this aspect of her claim. She failed to establish how the social context of Egypt vis a vis women impaired or nullified her enjoyment of her fundamental human rights, or how the institutionalized attitudes that discriminate against women would impact her in such a way that it would amount to persecution. It is worth noting in this regard that she was able, without male support, to turn to the police in Egypt. She also managed to change her husband’s position regarding his own family and the physical integrity of their daughter. These are positive indicators of the claimant’s ability to function as a woman in Egyptian society, even when going against the tide. The panel finds the claimant, as a female, faces discrimination and not persecution in Egypt.

RESIDUAL CLAIM OF DAUGHTER

[34]     The panel finds that the evidence pertaining to the daughter on the possibility of sexual harassment and/or discrimination amounting to persecution in Egypt is quite different from her mother’s. The daughter did not testify. As a result, there are no credibility problems stemming from her testimony. As she is a minor, there is no requirement for her to demonstrate subjective fear. The weakness of the advocacy of her claim by her Designated Representative should not count against her. The life choices of the mother in regard to her own allegations of sexual harassment amounting to persecution should not count against her daughter. The panel has considered that, as a minor, the proper approach is to assess her evidence from a child-centered perspective. The panel is mindful that what does not amount to persecution for an adult may well constitute persecution for a minor. The panel appreciates that “children have distinct rights, are in need of special protection, and can be persecuted in ways that would not amount to persecution of an adult”. “Physical violence and the sexual harassment of women remains widespread in Egypt, despite harassment being made a criminal offence in June 2014.”12 The daughter is XXXX years old. She is young enough for a return to Egypt to impact on her development. When one looks at the objective basis for the daughter’s residual claim of discrimination amounting to persecution resulting from cumulative sexual harassment of females in Egypt, the panel finds that her case is made out. The objective country conditions evidence describe wide-ranging, country-wide sexual harassment of women.13 “Sexual harassment and violence in public places is an ongoing problem for women in Egypt”.14 As a XXXX-year old female having reached puberty, the daughter would be impacted by this state of affairs. Given her young age, it is reasonable to conclude that, in her case, it would reach the threshold of persecution. In the specific case of the daughter when faced with this, there is no state protection as “[t]here do not appear to be any mechanisms in place to ensure implementation of the legal framework relevant to sexual harassment”.15 There is no available IFA. The daughter therefore faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt.

[35]     Turning to the son, his claim has not been established and fails for this reason. The residual claim of risk of organ harvesting to children is not covered by s. 96 or s. 97 of IRPA. It is an opportunistic crime, which exists as a generalized risk for large segments of the Egyptian population. There is insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence that the risk of this happening to the son is higher or different than for large segments of the population, or that it is a risk to children because they are children.

CONCLUSION

[36]     Having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that there is not a serious possibility that the principal claimant or her son would be persecuted in their country of nationality for any of the five grounds enumerated in the Refugee Convention. The panel also finds that the claimants are not persons in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1) of the IRPA.

[37]     The principal claimant and her son have an IFA.

[38]     The panel concludes that the principal claimant and her son are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and the panel therefore rejects their claims.

[39]     Having considered all of the evidence, the panel determines that there is a serious possibility that the daughter would be persecuted in her country of nationality for one of the five grounds enumerated in the Refugee Convention. She does not have an IFA. The panel concludes that the daughter is a Convention refugee. The panel accepts her claim.

(signed)           MIRYAM MOLGAT

April 11, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 2.

3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, November 1996.

4 Guideline 3: Child Refugee Claimants: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues: Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, September 30, 1996.

5 Exhibit 1.

6 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). [1980] 2 F.C. 302, 31 N.R. 34 (C.A.).

7 Shahamati, Hasan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A., no. A-388-92), Pratte, Hugessen, McDonald, March 24, 1994.

8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017. Note: Subsequent to the hearing, the National Documentation Package on Egypt was updated March 29, 2019. It contains no material differences with the version in use at the time of the hearing.

9 Exhibit 4, pages 1-56.

10 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017.

11 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017.

12 Kim v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 149, [2011] 2 FCR 448.

13 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28

Too Many. April 2017. Also see Sections 2 and 5 of NDP, Egypt, 29 March 2019.

14 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.7: Country Profile: FGM in Egypt. 28 Too Many. April 2017.

15 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.2: Egypt. Social Institutions and Gender Index 2014. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 March 2019, tab 5.1: 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 (June 2013-November 2014). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 26 November 2014. EGY105005.E.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 203

Citation: 2019 RLLR 203
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 15, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-01027
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002797-002801

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).1 The claimant’s identity has been established by a copy of her passport.2

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The claimant fears return to Egypt because she fears religious persecution by Muslim extremists. The claimant is a Christian. The claimant received threats by Muslim extremists calling her “infidel” and “enemy of Allah” because she was hosting Bible studies in her home for women. The claimant also faced harassment because she refuses to wear a hijab, including being pushed to the ground. The claimant left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and arrived in Canada on the same day. Further details are highlighted in her Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.3 The claimant signed her BOC on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.4 The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution5 in this decision.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[3]       The claimant provided a detailed narrative and documents supporting her Christian religion.6 The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fear of religious persecution by Muslim extremists in Egypt. The evidence indicates that there has been an increase in sectarian violence against Christians.7 The evidence indicates that there have been violent attacks against Christians by Muslim extremists throughout Egypt including in Cairo and in Alexandria.8 The panel finds that the claimant has established a nexus to religion because of her Christian faith and that she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution if she returns to Egypt.

State Protection

[4]       The objective evidence indicates the following regarding state protection in Egypt:

The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity.9

[5]       A Human Rights Watch report dated March 13, 2017 indicates that Christians who have been targeted by Muslim extremists report that Egyptian security forces are “apathetic” in their response to assist Christians.10 Further reports indicate that:

The authorities continued to violate the right to freedom of religion by discriminating against Christians. In August, security forces prevented dozens of Coptic Christians from praying in a house in Alforn village in Minya governorate, citing reasons of security. There was continued impunity for sectarian attacks on Christian communities, and the authorities continued to rely on customary reconciliation and settlements agreed by local authorities and religious leaders. Amid this impunity, violence by non-state actors against Christians increased significantly.11

[6]       The general security context in Egypt is uncertain at this time:

President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who first took power in a July 2013 coup, continues to govern Egypt in an authoritarian manner, though the election of a new parliament in late 2015 ended a period of rule by executive decree. Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Terrorism persists unabated in the Sinai Peninsula and has also struck the Egyptian mainland, despite the government’s use of aggressive and often abusive tactics to combat it.12

[7]       Further evidence provides a general overview of the fragility of the current regime and lack of operationally effective state protection in Egypt:

In the first several months of 2017, Egypt has witnessed a number of events that have challenged the country’s stability and security, economic development, and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The Egyptian government has continued its repercussion of public space, even going so far as to physically close the offices of the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture in early February. The country is no more stable, with terror groups and the Egyptian state engaged in a war of propaganda narratives. The Islamic State’s affiliate in mainland Egypt has targeted churches on Palm Sunday and announced its ”emir” in Islamic State media. The Islamic State’s Wilayat Sinai also is increasingly targeting the Christian population as it continues to claim control over urban areas in North Sinai even as Egypt’s army and tribal militias commit violence against unarmed residents of Sinai. A year ahead of scheduled elections, human rights lawyer and rumored presidential candidate Khaled Ali has been detained by security forces and smeared in pro-regime media as fomenting dissent.13

[8]       Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in Egypt at this time.

Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)

[9]       In Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Court of Appeal held that, with respect to the burden of proof, once the issue of an internal flight alternative was raised, the onus is on the claimant to show that she does not have an IFA.14 The burden placed on a claimant is fairly high in order to show that the IFA is unreasonable. In the Federal Court of Appeal decision of Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) in 2001, it was stated that the test is to show that the IFA is unreasonable.15 That test requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimants in relocating to a safe area. Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required. The panel must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that (1) the claimant would not be subject personally to a danger of torture, or to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment or face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA and (2) that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would be objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there.

[10]     The objective evidence provides examples of targeting of Christians with impunity in Cairo and Alexandria. For example, in December 2016, an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)­ affiliated suicide bomber killed 29 people in an attack against a Christian church, Saints Peter and Paul Church in Cairo.16 Reports of bombings at Christian churches also occurred in Alexandria in April 2017 during Palm Sunday at St. Mark’s Cathedral.17 The same report indicates that “Muslims opposed to church construction or renovation, even when legally authorized, continued to commit violence against churches and Christian-owned properties in various locales.”18 Given the general insecurity in Egypt and the successful violent attacks against Christians in Cairo and Alexandria by Muslim extremists, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant in her particular circumstances as she would not be free to worship or practice her Christian faith without fear of violent attacks perpetrated with impunity by Muslim extremists.

CONCLUSION

[11]     For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts her claim.

(signed)           KERRY CUNDAL

January 15, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 1.

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Exhibit 2.

5 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Ottawa, Canada, March 1993, updated November 1996.

6 Exhibits 1 and 2.

7 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), June 29, 2018, Item 1.7.

8 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1.7.

9 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.5.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.

13 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.

14 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).

15 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.).

16 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

17 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

18 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 202

Citation: 2019 RLLR 202
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 27, 2019
Panel: J. Schmalzbauer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ruth Williams
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-00857
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002780-002786

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “principal claimant”) and his spouse, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the “associate claimant”), as citizens of Egypt, who are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).1

ALLEGATIONS

[2]       The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the claimants put forth in the Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.2 The claimants fear political persecution due to their religion, as Coptic Christians. The claimants submit that they have since 2011, enduring increasing harassment, discrimination and violence due to their religious identity. The claimants had lived in a city known for its Christian population.

[3]       The claimants were both professionals in XXXX. They had owned and operated a local XXXX. In precipitating their decision to leave Egypt and seek safety for their three children and themselves, the XXXX and the principal claimant was attacked by religious extremists. He was first threatened in the XXXX, then the XXXX was attacked and damaged, and a threatening letter was left, against his children being kidnapped.

[4]       They fled the local area and made their arrangements to leave Egypt and come to Canada and seek protection.

Determination

[5]       The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees, as they do have a well- founded fear of persecution related to a Convention ground in Egypt.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       The panel is satisfied on a balance of probabilities in the claimants’ identities as nationals of Egypt, considering the certified copies of their Egyptian passports.3

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution

[7]       The duty of this panel is to find if there is sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence to determine that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimants would be persecuted if they returned to Egypt. The claimants submit that they fear persecution due to their faith and identities, as Coptic Christians.

[8]       The claimants testified in a very detailed, genuine and credible manner throughout their testimony. Both were able to reasonably convey their personal and professional circumstance in Egypt. They supported their testimony and allegations by presenting their business documents. They also submitted letters and pictures of support in documenting the events that precipitated their claim in Canada.4 The testimony before this panel was detailed and genuine as to their circumstances in Egypt, including the numerous attacks and threats against them and their minor children. Although they had travelled to Canada previously, without making a claim; I am satisfied in their explanation that they had a professional and comfortable life and at the time of previous travels it was less of a risk to continue to live in Egypt, however, their change in circumstances and the threats against them have increased, resulting in them leaving their lives behind and seeking protection. I take no negative inference against not previously seeking protection when in Canada. Overall, I accept the claimant’s allegations as presented.

[9]       The objective evidence reports that approximately 90 percent of Egypt’s population is Sunni Muslim and approximately ten percent is recognized as Christian.5 Approximately ten percent of Christians belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church, while other Christian communities constitute less than two percent of the population.

[10]     Egypt’s constitution describes freedom of belief as absolute and it provides adherents of Islam, Christianity and Judaism the right to practice their religion freely.6 However, the country condition evidence reports that sectarian attacks against Christians continue, including church bombings committed by the Islamic State (IS), forced displacement, physical assaults, arson attacks and blocking of church construction.7 A Response to Information Request (RIR) before me lists numerous and serious attacks committed against Coptic Christians in 2016 and 2017.8 There is evidence that high level officials, such as the President, are making efforts to promote religious freedoms. For example, President Sisi has pledged to respect freedom of belief and has made visits to Coptic Christian masses.

[11]     Increased attacks by IS in February 2017 lead to the largest wave of collective displacement in Egypt since the June 1967 war. Furthermore, two bombings in April 2017 led to President Sisi declaring a three-month state of emergency in the country.9 Additionally, the United States (U.S.) Department of State Report (DOS) indicates that lethal sectarian violence continued over the year, and included mob violence and vigilantism, for example, in May 2017, there was a terrorist attack on a bus carrying Coptic Christians.10 However, despite these efforts, there are still reports of secular violence.

[12]     For example, the 2017 U.S. DOS International Religious Freedom Report states that religious minorities continue to face significant threats of sectarian violence.11 The report outlines violence targeted toward Christians specifically because of their religion. Furthermore, authorities fail to protect minority victims and demand that charges be dropped in the spirit of reconciliation.12 Furthermore, there are numerous reports of Christian churches being targeted as well as the protest of building new churches. There have been cases of churches being burned down and vandalized, as well as Christian homes being similarly targeted.13

[13]     The same report states that:

ISIS claimed responsibility for multiple other attacks, including suicide bombings against two churches during Palm Sunday services, attacks against passengers on a bus carrying Christian pilgrims, and a spate of attacks on individual Christians in northern Sinai and elsewhere. An assailant killed a Coptic Orthodox priest in Cairo and injured another; a court sentenced the assailant to death for murder. According to press reports, three noncommissioned officers and a security guard allegedly tortured and killed a Christian police conscript. His family reported in a videotaped interview that he was “tortured and killed for his faith.” …

On April 9, twin suicide bombings at Coptic Orthodox churches killed 45 people during Palm Sunday services. One struck St. Mark’s Cathedral, the seat of the Coptic Orthodox Bishop of Alexandria, where Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II was leading the service. The attacker detonated a bomb at the gate of the church compound after being refused entry by security. The other attack occurred in the city of Tanta in the Nile delta, where a suicide bomber detonated himself among the front pews of the church. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks and warned Muslims to avoid Christian gatherings in Egypt. …

Terrorists affiliated with ISIS carried out a series of attacks against Christians in northern Sinai after having issued videos and other public statements calling on pious Muslims to kill them. On January 30, masked assailants shot Coptic Christian Wael Milad in his shop, according to press reports. Eyewitnesses told media outlets that on February 11 an attacker shot Christian veterinarian Bahgat William in the head, neck, and stomach as he was leaving his clinic. Attackers killed Adel Showky on the same day in al-Arish’s Samaran neighborhood, according to press reports. On February 16, two assailants on a motorbike gunned down Coptic Christian schoolteacher Gamal Tawfiq as he was walking through a crowded marketplace between his home and school, according to press reports. On February 22, the corpses of two local Christians, Saad Hanna and his son Medhat, were found on the roadside in al-Arish. Saad’s body showed gunshot wounds; Medhat’s showed signs of having been burned alive, according to press reports. Following these attacks and additional threats, hundreds of Christians fled Sinai during the first several months of the year for other parts of Egypt, according to press and church sources. According to an international NGO, several families told human rights activists they wanted to return to their homes, but were skeptical that this would be possible. Subsequently on May 6, gunmen shot and killed Nabeel Saber Ayoub, a Copt who had fled al-Arish with his family but returned briefly to complete school paperwork for his son and to check on his house and barber shop, according to press reports. Violent attacks against individual Christians were not limited to northern Sinai.14

[14]     The claimants’ situation, which I accept, is in line with the objective evidence, of targeting of violence, kidnapping and harassment, followed by reconciliation efforts rather than protective efforts by authorities.

[15]     I find that the claimants’ as Coptic Christians would more likely continue to be targeted for their religion and are subject to murders, kidnappings, physical assaults, bomb attacks, disappearances and forced displacement. As such, I find there is more than a mere possibility that claimants would be persecuted due to their religion if they return to Egypt.

State Protection

[16]     I do acknowledge the efforts of the state to recognize and promote religious tolerance in Egypt, as the 2017 U.S. Commission of International Religious Freedom report indicates that since 2014, President Sisi has made significant strides to address religious freedom concerns. However, despite notable progress, the number of violent attacks targeting Christians increased. Furthermore, discriminatory laws and policies remain in place and continue to negatively impact Christians, including blasphemy laws and limits on conversion from Islam. Further the evidence before me is that the government frequently failed to prevent, investigate or prosecute crimes targeting members of religious minorities, which fosters a climate of impunity. As in the situation of the claimants, in reporting the issues to police, they were advised to reconcile or leave things, in order to keep the peace. I find that given the objective evidence of increasing violence directed towards Christians in Egypt, that is unabated despite the state’s efforts and given the claimants own experiences of violence without authorities being willing or able to protect or even assist them, I find that the claimants would not have access to adequate operationally effective state protection in returning to Egypt.

Internal Flight Alternative

[17]     The panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. Although, the country condition information before me indicates that larger urban centres are safer for religious minorities. The United Kingdom Home Office states that:

Cities, such as Cairo and Alexandria, have large, socio-economically and culturally diverse populations which co-exist, for the most part, peaceably. Many people move to different parts of Egypt for social and economic reasons.15

[18]     The claimants lived in what was once a religiously diverse city with a high Christian populace, the situation in Egypt, is that extremists, are targeting persons of the Christian faith, the claimants as having more than many, as owning a local pharmacy, would continue to come under attack as there is almost no evidence before me that even living in a urban center with a large Christian population, can protection one from the violence throughout Egypt. Therefore, I find that claimants would face similar persecution for their Christian faith, throughout Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[19]     For the foregoing reasons the panel finds that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are Convention refugees as set out in section 96. Therefore, their claims are accepted.

(signed)           J. SCHMALZBAUER

May 27, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 2.

3 Exhibit 1.

4 Exhibits 5 and 6.

5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, March 29, 2019, Item 12.1.

6 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

7 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.

8 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.8 Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105805.E.

9 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.8 RIR EGY105805.E.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

13 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

14 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.

15 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1.5.