Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 201

Citation: 2019 RLLR 201
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 17, 2019
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jonathon W. Jurmain
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06140
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-02524, VB9-02525, VB9-02526, VB9-02527
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002362-002367

Reasons for Decision

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the principal claimant; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the associate claimant; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the minor claimants.

[2]       The claimants are citizens of Egypt who claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[3]       In rendering my decision I have applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines to this claim.

[4]       The claimants are a family of five. The principal claimant is the father. The associate claimant is his wife and the minor claimants are their three daughters.

[5]       The principal and associate claimant began living in Kuwait in 2003. They lived in Kuwait without issue until 2016, returning to Egypt periodically to visit family and friends. During those visits, the principal claimant’s family would continually exert pressure on the claimant to have female circumcision or FGM performed on their daughters.

[6]       The claimants managed to delay the procedure and put off the family; however, in 2016 the principal claimant’s mother and elder brother told the claimants that the procedure would be performed during their next visit. For this reason the claimants stopped visiting the family and only visited the associate claimant’s family during their visit in 2016 and 2018.

[7]       While living in Kuwait, the principal claimant began to express his dissatisfaction with the Egyptian government and President Sisi. He would meet with friends in cafes and restaurants to discuss his views and also made anti-government posts on social media.

[8]       In a return trip to Egypt in XXXX 2016, he was stopped at the airport and interrogated for two hours about his opinions and social media comments. During his time in Egypt he was visited by authorities on other occasions. He managed to leave the country without issue with the help of a friend at the airport.

[9]       The family returned to Egypt in 2018. The principal claimant’s brother found out they were in the country and called the claimant, insisting that the procedure would be done. The claimant agreed as a way to hold off the family but fled the country instead. The remaining claimants joined him in Canada at a later date.

[10]     The claimant’s brother has sent several recent text messages to the principal claimant through WhatsApp telling him that the procedure must be performed.

[11]     The claimants fear that FGM will be forcefully performed on their daughters if they return. They both adamantly oppose the procedure. The principal claimant also continues to post on social media and fears he will be detained by authorities if he returns.

[12]     I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act for the reasons that follow.

[13]     The claimants’ identities today have been established through the certified copies of their passports that I have on file.

[14]     In terms of credibility, there is a presumption of truth applied to all refugee claimants unless there is a reason to doubt their allegation testimony. In this case, the testimony of the claimants raised no significant credibility concerns. There were no material inconsistencies between the claimants’ testimonies and the documentary evidence or their BOC narrative and both claimants testified in a genuine and straightforward manner and there were no hesitations in their responses.

[15]     I do think the principal claimant was speculating with respect to whether his name is on a wanted list; however, I find that this does not detract from my overall assessment of their credibility.

[16]     I find that their allegations are largely consistent with the country condition evidence described below.

[17]     Their testimony has also been sufficiently supported by documentary evidence, including copies of the messages from the principal claimant’s brother as well as social media posts made by the claimant since arriving in Canada.

[18]     I do not have copies of the posts he made in Kuwait prior to 2016 but I accept that this could have been potentially an oversight and, in any event, I do not draw a negative inference given the reliability of the testimony and the other evidence before me.

[19]     I find that the claimants are reliable witnesses who genuinely fear returning to Egypt for the reasons they’ve given. Based on the nature of their fears, these allegations have links to the Convention refugee grounds of political opinion and also membership in particular social group regarding the minor claimants who are female and face gender-related violence, while their parents are members of a particular group, namely close family members of those daughters.

[20]     Having accepted their allegations, I must determine whether their fear is objectively well- founded and in this case I do find that the country documentation establishes the objective risk to the claimants.

[21]     The objective evidence before me supports the claimants’ allegations. Egypt has an extremely poor human rights record. According to Amnesty International, authorities use torture and other ill-treatment and enforce disappearance against hundreds of people. The crackdown on civil society escalated with non-governmental organization staff being subject to additional interrogation and travel bans.

[22]     Arbitrary arrests and detentions followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, youthful protestors, journalists and human rights defenders were routine.

[23]     With respect to the social media activity of the principal claimant, I have a report before me, and this is 11.2 of the NDP, Freedom on the Net report, which states that internet freedom has been declining dramatically. The government has blocked dozens of critical new sites. Security forces have detained individuals for criticizing the government and mocking the president on social media.

[24]     For example, a human rights lawyer was given a ten year sentence for a Facebook page that allegedly incited terrorism which is a term that is being used and applied to non-violent criticism of the government. Others have been arrested or sentenced for having Facebook pages that express legitimate opposition to their polices.

[25]     This is also confirmed by document 2.1 which is the United States Department of State report which indicates that the government continually restricts and obstructs access to the internet and censors online content. There were credible reports that the government monitored private online communication without appropriate legal authority. Individuals were prosecuted and accused of posting insulting material.

[26]     The evidence before me also corroborates the claimants’ fear of female circumcision for their daughters. The documentation shows that FGM exists in a high proportion of the female population of Egypt. According to document 2.1, FGM is illegal but remains a serious problem. 70% of girls between ages 15 and 19 have undergone FGM. According to international and local observers the government did not effectively enforce the FGM law.

[27]     According to item 5.7 of the National Documentation Package the number is 87% among all women aged 15 to 49 have undergone FGM and this is in a population of approximately 95 million people which the report suggests make Egypt the country with the greatest number of women and girls who have experienced FGM of any country in the world.

[28]     The practice is deeply entrenched in society with more than half the population believing the practice should continue.

[29]     Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I find that that the claimants have established with sufficient, reliable evidence that they would face a serious possibility of persecution if they return to Egypt.

[30]     In terms of state protection, as the state is the agent of harm in this case with respect to the persecution of individuals expressing anti-government views, and further that despite the changes in the government’s approach to FGM, the state is often ineffective in implementing the law in practice, I find that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimants in this case.

[31]     With respect to an internal flight alternative, the persecution of individuals expressing anti-government views occurs throughout the country. Similarly, with respect to any internal flight alternative that would address the fear of FGM, the evidence before is that the principal claimant’s family has known through other family members and neighbours when the claimants return to Egypt and remained in Cairo. This is the internal flight alternative that I initially proposed to the claimant; however, based on the evidence, I find that the claimants would still face a serious possibility of persecution if they relocated to Cairo as the family would locate them and continue exerting pressure to have the procedure performed.

 Conclusion

[32]     I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.

 — PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 199

Citation: 2019 RLLR 199
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 31, 2019
Panel: Ethan McMonagle
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jonathan Richard J Lage
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB9-00453
Associated RPD Number(s): MB9-00461
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002183-002186

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       You allege that you are sisters, who come from a devout Coptic Christian family of Egyptian nationality. You both spent most of your lives in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia), but your status their was contingent upon your father, whose status itself was temporary. In Egypt, you fear persecution at the hands of Muslim extremists as a result of your religious identity as Coptic Christians. Fearing return to Egypt, you each filed claims for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       I find that your respective identities as nationals of Egypt are established by the documents provided: your passports1 and your birth certificates.2

[7]       You have also established your identity as Coptic Christians by providing your birth certificates, baptism certificates and a supporting letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of Egypt XXXX XXXX XXXX.3

Nexus

[8]       I find that you have each established a nexus to section 96 by reason of religion.

Credibility

[9]       Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above, namely that you are each of the Coptic Christian faith. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Objective basis of future risk

[10]     The fact that you face this risk is corroborated by the following documents contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, March 29, 2019 version. Briefly, abuses of Coptic Christians were increasing even before the fall of the Mubarak regime. Christian properties, including homes, businesses, and churches, have been destroyed and Christians have been the primary targets of violent sectarian attacks. Christians have been arrested and detained; they have also faced harassment, rape, mental and physical abuse and pressure to convert to Islam; police officers have been involved in the persecution of Christians. The state has not adequately protected Christians, and has failed to prosecute perpetrators.4

State protection

[11]     I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. The objective evidence indicates that the Egyptian authorities not only fail to protect Coptic Christians, but they themselves engage in violence against them, and perpetrators of attacks against Christians commit abuses in a climate of impunity.5 I find that your evidence, when considered in conjunction with the objective evidence, is a clear and convincing rebuttal of the presumption of state protection.

Internal flight alternative

[11]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. The evidence does not suggest that the religiously-motivated violence is restricted to a particular area of Egypt, or that individuals in your situation could find safety elsewhere.6 As such, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative in Egypt for you.

CONCLUSION

[12]     Having considered the evidence, I find there is a serious possibility that you would each be persecuted upon return to Egypt because of your Coptic Christian identities. I conclude that you are “Convention refugees”. Accordingly, I accept your claims.

(signed)           ETHAN MCMONAGLE

May 31, 2019

1 Document 1 – Package of information from the referring Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) / Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

2 Document 4 – Personal Documents

3 Ibid.

4 Document 3 – National Documentation Package, Egypt, (CND – Egypt) 29 March 2019, tab 12.8: Response to information request EGY105805.E., Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 20 June 2017; Tab 12.1: Egypt. International Religious Freedom Report for 2017, United States, Department of State, 28 May 2018.

5 Supra note 4, tab 12.8.

6 Supra note 4, tab 12.5: Egypt’s Christians Flee ISIS Violence: Displaced Call Security Officials’ Response ‘Apathetic‘, Human Rights Watch, Joe Stork, 13 March 2017.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 198

Citation: 2019 RLLR 198
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 27, 2019
Panel: Ethan McMonagle
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Me Nicholas Hersh
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB8-14792
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001889-001892

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

[2]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

[3]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

[4]       The claimant prefers to be referred to with the pronoun ‘they.’ I will hereinafter periodically refer to the claimant as ‘they.’

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The claimant’s narrative is quite detailed. Briefly, the claimant alleges that they was born in Egypt and lived periodically in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They is a citizen of Egypt and no other country. They considers themself to be transgender non-binary or third gender. They experienced ongoing discrimination and harassment throughout their life in Egypt as a result of their sexuality, even having been prescribed medication as a teenager to increase testosterone and ‘correct’ their problematic sexuality. They came to Canada as a student in XXXX 2013. In XXXX 2016, the claimant’s family exerted pressure on them to marry. The cumulative effect of the claimant’s negative experiences surrounding their sexuality caused the claimant to seek crisis intervention and medical attention on numerous occasions. The claimant made their claim for refugee protection on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]       I find that your identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided, mainly your passport.

Nexus

[8]       I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of member of a particular social group, by way of your sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

Credibility

[9]       Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. I note that this file is very well documented, including numerous medical and therapy reports, supporting letters and an Ontario driver’s licence wherein your gender is marked ‘X.’1 After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Objective basis of future risk

[10]  The fact that you face this risk is corroborated by the following document, contained in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, June 29, 2018 version, tab 2.1. In particular, it notes that:

While the law does not explicitly criminalize consensual same-sex sexual activity, it allows police to arrest LGBTI persons on charges such as “debauchery,” “prostitution,” and “violating the teachings of religion” and provides for prison sentences if convicted of up to 10 years.

[11]     The report further notes that LGBTI individuals in Egypt have experienced arrest and harassment and in this particular case, this harm clearly amounts to persecution.

State protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[12]     Given the foregoing reference to country conditions in Egypt, coupled with your particular profile, I find that neither adequate state protection nor a viable internal flight alternative exists in Egypt for you.

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           Ethan McMonagle

February 27, 2019

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 197

Citation: 2019 RLLR 197
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 20, 2019
Panel: Julie Morin
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Luai Walid El Haj-
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB8-11152
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

[2]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

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

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       You allege the following: You allege that you will be harmed by your daughter’s husband. She had been a victim of domestic violence in Egypt. After years of violence in her country of origin, she and her children obtained recently the protection of Canada. She is now in the process of divorcing her husband, but he threatened to harm you if you were to return to Egypt in order to force her to go back there. You fear to be harmed by this man who was also violent with his children. You fear of being subjected to his violence if you were to go back to Egypt.

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

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

Nexus

[7]       I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of member of a particular social group as you fear persecution because you have members of your family who were submitted to domestic violence; consequently, they were granted the protection of Canada.

Credibility

[8]       Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above: a testimony of your daughter who explains the risk you face in Egypt because she has started the procedures to divorce her violent husband (C-1); a XXXX report for your grandson XXXX which explains the problem that he is experiencing and confirms that his father has been violent with the family (C-2); the narrative of your daughter which describes in details the violence that she and her children, especially XXXX, were subjected to at the hands of her husband and father of the children (C-3). After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Objective Basis of Future Risk

[9]       Based on the credibility of your allegations, and the documentary evidence set out below, I find that you have established a future risk that you will be subjected to the following harm: Violence such as beating, injuries, possibly death.

[10]     The fact that you face this risk is corroborated by the following documents: NDP for Egypt – March 29, 2019 Version: on the fact that violence against women is widespread (tab 1.4); on the fact that domestic violence is prevalent and commonly accepted (tab 1.8); Amnesty International published a thorough analysis on the violence against women in Egypt (tab 5.6). The report states that women in Egypt have been facing endemic violence since the uprising of 2011.

State Protection

[11]     I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. According to the evidence I have, the police are also reportedly reluctant to investigate cases of violence against women, particularly where it is domestic (tab 1.4). Also, another source states that domestic violence remains unpunished because of shortcomings in the Egyptian Penal Code (tab 1.4). The government has put in place a few years ago the National Strategy to Combat Violence against Women but the results are limited because there is no monitoring mechanisms (tab 2.3). Finally, the Amnesty Internal report quoted above indicates that successive governments have failed to put in place adequate protection to women from this endemic violence (tab 5.6).

Internal Flight Alternative

[12]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. The evidence I have is that the person you fear is well connected and has influence. Also, the evidence I have is that this man was violent with his children; this demonstrates to me that he can harm vulnerable persons such as you. You do not have any support in Egypt, you would be left by yourself without protection.

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           Julie Morin

September 20, 2019

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 196

Citation: 2019 RLLR 196
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 17, 2019
Panel: François Ramsay
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Odette Desjardins
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-18982
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-18985, MB7-19007, MB7-19008, MB7-19056, MB7-19057, MB7-19058
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001728-001732

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXhis wifeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXXhis in-laws, XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who claim to be citizens of Egypt, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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

[3]       I have appointed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as designated representative for his minor child XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

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

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The claimants allege the following:

[6]       The claimants are Coptic Christians.

[7]       On XXXX XXXX 2017, XXXX XXXX the daughter of the principal claimant, was the victim of a kidnapping attempt at the hands of two men, one of whom she knew as a classmate. This individual, considered to be a Muslim extremist, had already harassed her in the past.

[8]       The same day, the principal claimant tried unsuccessfully to lodge a complaint with the police. When the police officer refused to record the complaint and the principal claimant insisted, the officer threatened to detain and accuse him and his daughter of being disrespectful to a police officer.

[9]       The following night, XXXX and the principal claimant started receiving a number of threatening phone calls from her aggressor.

[10]     Frightened, the principal claimant and his family decided to seek shelter in Alexandria.

[11]     On XXXX XXXX 2017, XXXX was informed by a friend that her aggressor was looking for her.

[12]     On XXXX XXXX 2017, the principal claimant was informed by his in-laws that his daughter’s aggressor had come after them. As a result, they joined the rest of the family in Alexandria.

[13]     On XXXX XXXX 2017, all the claimants left Egypt for Canada.

[14]     They that should they return to Egypt, they will fall victim to XXXX aggressor and his accomplice who will want to seek revenge over the family’s refusal to convert XXXX to Islam and marry her to her aggressor.

DETERMINATION

[15]     I find that the claimants are “Convention refugees” as they have established a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[16]     I find that the identity of the claimants as nationals of Egypt is established by the documents provided, namely their passport.

Nexus

[17]     I find that the claimants have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of their religion.

Credibility

[18]     Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues.

[19]     The claimants submitted documentary evidence in support of their claims. With respect to the evidence submitted by the principal applicants, Exhibits P-6 to P-12 and P-28 corroborate the allegations of the claimants with respect to their religious faith. Exhibits P-21 and P-22 corroborate the allegations of the principal claimant with respect to his marital status and the composition of his family. Exhibits P-13 to P-19 and P-28 corroborate the allegations of the principal claimant and his wife regarding their educational and professional background.

[20]     With respect to the evidence submitted by the in-laws, Exhibit P-6 and P-9 corroborate their allegations with respect to their religious faith. Exhibits P-21 and P-22 corroborate their allegations with respect to their marital status and the composition of their family.

[21]     After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt neither their authenticity, nor the truthfulness of their content.

Objective Basis of Future risR

[22]     Despite some positive elements in the objective evidence, I find, based on the credibility of the allegations of the claimants, and the documentary evidence set out below, that as Christian Copts, they have established a future risk that they would be subjected to the following harm should they return to Egypt: societal and institutional intimidation and discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs, forced displacement and physical assault, as well as prosecution for blasphemy, proselytizing, and denigration of Islam.

[23]     The fact that the claimants face this risk is corroborated by the documents found at tabs 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 12.6, 12.8 of the National Documentation Package for Egypt – March 29, 2019 Version.

Nature of the Harm

[24]     This harm clearly amounts to persecution.

State Protection

[25]     I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimants with adequate protection.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. I come to that conclusion considering that, according to the above-cited documentary evidence, Coptic Christians are presently exposed to a constant risk of persecution wherever they may be located.

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           François Ramsay 

September 17, 2019

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 195

Citation: 2019 RLLR 195
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 27, 2019
Panel: Ludmila Pergat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Razgar Hasan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-09759
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-09787
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001563-001571

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a XXXX-year-old female and a national of Egypt.

[2]       Her sister, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-years old, was born in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Her parents returned to Egypt the following year. Children of foreigners born in Dubai don’t have the rights of local citizenship and automatically assume the nationality of the father. Foreign children are automatically considered nationals; however, they must renounce the citizenship of their parents, who are Egyptian. The UAE does not permit dual nationality.

[3]       Given that XXXX has not renounced her Egyptian citizenship, she is an Egyptian national.

[4]       Both Claimants allege to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds being members of a particular social group, that of women.

IDENTITY

[5]       The Claimant’s identities were established by a copy of their Egyptian passports submitted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). Based on the passports provided by CIC and the written testimony of the Claimants, in the narrative of their BOC, the Tribunal is satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the Claimants have established their identities.

DETERMINATION

[6]       The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) determines that the Claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are “Convention refugees” as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and “persons in need of protection” as defined in section 97(1)[8] of that law.

ALLEGATIONS

[7]       The principal Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, makes the following allegations in the narrative of her Basis of Claim Form (BOC).

[8]       Her grandfather was an Imam of the Mosque in Alexandria. Her father is a very conservative Muslim man. He is a project manager and makes a good living. The principal Claimant attended a private school in the UAE since 2007. The family moved to the UAE with them. Her father is very strict, made her wear a hijab since she was twelve and made her memorize the Quran. The Claimant came to Canada in 2016 to attend University to study engineering, which she did not want to do, nor was she successful in the studies, but did so to stay away from her domineering father.

[9]       The Claimant visited Egypt in XXXX 2015 when their maternal grandmother passed away. During that visit she was sexually assaulted on the street. She said that someone put his hand on her breast and exposed himself to her. She did not go to the police. She returned to Canada with her mother and sister.

[10]     The principal Claimant has been seen by a XXXX since then, and suffers from several disorders such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She is being treated with several medications and is seeing a XXXX at Carleton University which she presently attends. At present her education is being paid for by her older brother since her father stopped paying all expenses when she stopped studying Engineering. Her father wanted her to return to Egypt for one month. She learned from close relatives and friends that he intends to force her to marry her cousin. The principal Claimant told her father that she refuses to return to Egypt. Her father was furious and said that he would cut her off financially, which he did in 2017. He also said that he would do anything in his power to have her return to Egypt.

[11]     The principal Claimant fears returning to Egypt. She would have to live with her father and marry her cousin, in the marriage arranged by her father.

[12]     The Claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal Claimant’s younger sister, testified that she will be harmed by her father and his family because she stands by her sister. Her younger years mirror that of her sister where it concerns her father, his expectations of his daughters and rigid upbringing. She was also assaulted, in her case, by a taxi driver when she returned for her grandmother’s funeral. Since her coming to Canada to study, after her visit to Egypt for her grandmother’s funeral, her father has tried to have her convince her sister, the principal Claimant, to return to Egypt. When she refused, he became very angry and told her that he would no longer support the younger Claimant financially. He told the younger sister that he learned from his friends that she has registered to study psychology instead of engineering, removed her hijab and smoked cigarettes. He insisted that they return to Egypt.

[13]     Both Claimants are being followed by a XXXX for their issues arising from past abuses by their father and the pressures to conform to his strict expectations.

[14]     Both Claimants feared returning to Egypt to their father. They knew that they would face arranged marriages, be locked in his home and made to wear the hijab again.

[15]     They claimed refugee protection in Canada in August 2017.

ANALYSIS

[16]     In analyzing this claim, the Tribunal considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines for Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution. The Tribunal is cognizant that female refugee claimants may have difficulties in demonstrating that their claims are credible. As such, the Tribunal has considered and applied these guidelines during the hearing, as well as in assessing the weight given to both the oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal.

[17]     The testimony of both Claimants’ was very difficult and emotional, however, spontaneous and straightforward. The principal Claimant’s highly emotional state was supported by medical reports submitted by her family physician1 and her XXXX.2 The XXXX report3 states that the Claimant suffers from both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Her sister is severely affected by her older sister’s (principal Claimant) fragile state.

[18]     The Tribunal took into account the Claimants’ conditions medical and fragile conditions during the hearing, applying the principles of the Chairperson’s Guidelines for women refugee claimants. The Tribunal did consider that both Claimants are educated young women and have lived away from their father for many years. However, in this particular case, the Tribunal believes that the strict upbringing that they had from a very conservative father, who supported them financially all their lives, caused serious and permanent fear of being forced to live a life that they did not experience in the past few years living as Western women, able to make their own choices and decisions. They are Muslim women and embrace their faith but fear the life of a Muslim woman in an ultra-Muslim society in Egypt.

[19]     The central element of this claim is whether the two Claimants had their human rights violated by their father. Is there is serious possibility that their basic human rights will be violated by their father and/or other relatives should they return to Egypt?

[20]     The Tribunal believes that, based on the Claimants’ narratives in their BOCs and their testimony at the hearing, the Claimants face not only a serious possibility but the probability of having these rights violated.

[21]     XXXX father has already arranged a marriage for her with her cousin, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Tribunal believes that the principal Claimant would have no option but to marry her cousin should she return to Egypt. The Claimant has spent all of her life in school studying. She has lived a life of never having to work or think about supporting herself. Consequently, given that her father has cut off her financial support, if she were to return to Egypt, she would have to return to her father and be forced into the marriage with her cousin.

[22]     The expectation of their father was that they get the best education that he can afford and that they return to Egypt to marriages arranged by him.

[23]     In Vidhani v. M.C.I.,4 the Court held that “women who are forced into marriages against their will have had a basic human right violated.”

[24]     The Tribunal believes that in this particular case and under these particular circumstances, the Claimant’s basic human rights are being and will further be violated.

[25]     Based on the younger Claimant’s narrative in her BOC and her testimony at the hearing, the Tribunal believes that she will also have her basic human rights violated by being forced into an arranged marriage by her father.

[26]     The Tribunal also believes that both Claimants were sexually assaulted when they returned to Egypt for their grandmother’s funeral in 2015 and that experience left them terrified of returning to Egypt.

[27]     Considering that the evidence submitted in the BOC form is deemed true as sworn evidence and is not contradicted by any other evidence submitted in this case, in the Tribunal’s view, the Claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, the credibility of their allegations as well as the existence of a subjective fear.

State Protection

[28]     Egypt was considered in 2014 by more than 300 gender experts to be “the worst country in the Arab world to be a woman”5 and there is no evidence to the effect that the situation has in any way improved since.

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

[30]     In that context, given also the reported reluctance of women to report violence because of shame, fear of retaliation against them and their children and community pressure, violence against women virtually goes unpunished allowing the offenders to act in almost total impunity.6

[31]     Violence, including sexual and domestic violence, against women is universal and irrelevant when determining whether rape and other gender-specific crimes constitute forms of persecution. The real issues are whether the violence, experienced or feared, is a serious violation of a fundamental human right for a Convention ground and in what circumstances can the risk of that violence be said to result from a failure of State protection.

[32]     Based on the declarations of the Claimants, the Tribunal is of the opinion, that they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims and that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state of Egypt is unable and unwilling to protect them for the following reasons.

[33]     The Claimants are perceived, based on their actions, to oppose Islam. They are two young women who have spent most of their young lives and all of their adult lives pursuing an education in Dubia, UAE, and Canada. They have gone against the strict rules by which Muslim women in Egypt must abide and what their father believes in and insists upon. They put aside their core traditions such the wearing of the hijab and adopted western accepted practices such as smoking, which are against the Muslim values. These actions subjected them not only to their father’s wrath, their relatives and friends but also to the religious faction and government that perceives them as infidels and will not protect them.

[34]     The Tribunal believes that in this particular case, under these particular circumstances, the Claimants have established that they will not be safe anywhere Egypt.

[35]     In light of all of the above, the Tribunal finds that the Claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims. The Tribunal further finds that the Claimants have rebutted the presumption of State protection; they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is both unable and unwilling to protect them.

Internal Flight Alternative

[36]     The Tribunal finds that there is no relevant Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Egypt for individuals such as the Claimants.

[37]     As single women with no means of financial support and no man to protect them, they would be targeted by those who adhere faithfully to the Muslim belief and would condemn them for being infidels. As they testified, they would be seen as prostitutes and could be the victims of honour killings. The Tribunal’s conclusion is based on the fact that the risk of persecution emanates not only from their father and his extended family in Egypt but also from State agents, notably the clerics and religious police. That State authority extends to the whole country.

[38]     The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Claimants would be at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution in all parts of the country.

CONCLUSION

[39]     After having considered both oral and written testimony submitted, the Tribunal believes that the Claimants have discharged their burden of proof.

[40]     Based upon the above analysis, the Tribunal determines that principal Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand her sister XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are “Convention refugees”, as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and “persons in need of protection” as defined in section 97(1)[8] of that law.

 (signed)          LUDMILA PERGAT

March 27, 2019

1 Document 4, item C-10.

2 Document 4, item C-11.

3 Ibid, note 2.

4 Vidhani v. M.C.I., [1995] 3 F.C. 60 (T.D.).

5  Document 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (30 June 2017), item 5.1.

6 Document 3, NDP for Egypt (30 June 2017), item 5.6.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 194

Citation: 2019 RLLR 194
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 2, 2019
Panel: Jeffrey Brian Gullickson
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Raphael Vagliano
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-06938
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-06961, MB7-11944
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001351-001024

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal claimant, is a citizen of Egypt, according to her passport submitted as evidence. Her daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and son, XXXX XXXX XXXX, are citizens of the United States Of America (US), according to their passports submitted as evidence. They are all claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       I appointed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as designated representative for the associate minor child claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXIn rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The principal claimant had three children with her husband in Egypt. She first came to the US with that husband. The male claimant was born there in 2001.

[4]       The principal claimant divorced her husband in 2001 and then married a Christian man, who was a permanent resident of the US, but her permanent residency was refused in the US. Her family found out about her marriage to a Christian and swore to kill her for an act against Islam. She divorced her second husband in 2009.

[5]       She made a refugee claim in the US in 2008, but it was denied in 2011 and lived illegally in the US, until she came to Canada.

[6]       She had the female child claimant with another man outside of marriage in 2010. Her family in Egypt learned to the child born outside marriage and threatened her with death for another offence against Islam.

[7]       Fearing deportation, the principal claimant came to Canada with her US daughter and made a refugee claim in 2017. The US male child claimant came into Canada later and made a refugee claim.

DETERMINATION

[8]       I find that the principal claimant is a “Convention refugee” as she established a serious possibility of persecution for religion and membership in a particular social group in Egypt as a woman victim of conjugal or family violence without adequate state protection in Egypt.

[9]       I find that the US associate claimants have not satisfied the burden of establishing a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, or that, on a balance of probabilities, they would personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture upon return to their country, the US.

ANALYSIS

US Child claimants

[10]     The principal claimant in her own basis of claim form (BOC) and those of her children did not indicate that her US children faced a risk of serious harm in the US.

[11]     Their most recent counsel of record stated in the hearing that he did not intend to make any submissions for the US child claimants, regarding the US, and the principal claimant testified that these claimants did not face a serious harm in the US.

[12]     In the National Documentation Package (NDP) for the US, dated March 29, 2019, does not indicate that the child claimants, in their particular circumstances, would face a risk of serious harm in the US, or that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the child claimants in the US, or that there is a probability of risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment for the child claimants there. I do not consider that the separation of the family is sufficient to be understood as a serious harm or persecution for the child claimants, in particular since the laws of nationality and the control of borders are laws of general application, and have not been shown to be contrary to international standards of justice. Also, the documentation package for the US does not indicate that the child claimants would not be protected, if they needed protection in the US, as US citizens.

Credibility – principal claimant

[13]     I found the principal claimant generally credible regarding the main elements of her claim and of the claim for her US children.

[14]     She submitted credible and probative evidence regarding her religion as a Muslim previously in Egypt, of her marriages and relationships with her previous husbands or partners, the fact that some of them were Christian, and the birth of her children, including her daughter who was born while her mother, the principal claimant, was not married (C-1 to C-10 and C-17 to C- 18).

[15]     She submitted country condition information for Egypt regarding the mistreatment of Christians and women without adequate state protection. (C-11 to C-16).

[16]     The NDP for Egypt, dated March 29, 2019 indicates that women face practical widespread legal, social and economic discrimination in Egypt and that domestic violence (that may be considered family violence) is widespread and considered socially acceptable in Egypt (NDP, tab 1.4, section 2.3 and tab 5.6) and state protection is often ineffective and police are reluctant to investigate cases of violence against women (NDP, tab 1.4, section 2.4 and tab 5.5).

[17]     While there may be no legal impediment to internal movement, for even single women in Egypt who relocate for a variety of reasons (NDP, tab 1.4, section 2.4 and tab 5.5), the claimant is also a woman who has demonstrated that she is not a fully practicing Muslim and would likely encounter hostility or violence in a new residential area in Egypt.

[18]     Regarding women’s choice not to wear the hijab in public in Egypt, the NDP mentions harassment against women not wearing the hijab in Egypt and the perception that they are not Muslim (NDP, tab 5.1). The claimant, who does not wear a hijab as Muslim, would encounter other problems compounded by the fact of her past relations with Christian men and her daughter born outside marriage.

[19]     The NDP indicates that there have been recent terrorist attacks against Christians, Christian institutions, churches, and that State protection for Christians and their institutions is inadequate (NDP, tabs 12.1, 12, 5, 12.8, 12.14 and 12.16). Consequently, the claimant as a perceived apostate or Christian would face an increased risk of violence.

[20]     While religious conversion from Islam to Christianity or leaving Islam is not technically illegal in Egypt, the State can bring criminal charges against persons for apostasy, apostasy is forbidden by the Sharia and the State can prosecute persons for apostasy under the penal code for “denigrating religions” (NDP, tab 1.7, section 5.4.1).

State Protection

[21]     I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the principal claimant in Egypt with adequate protection, for the reasons stated above.

Internal flight alternative

[22]     I have considered whether a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) exists for the principal claimant. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt for the principal claimant.

[22]     She has demonstrated in her testimony and evidence that she is not a practicing Muslim, has married Christian men and shows the will to continue this open behaviour as well as not wearing the hijab and not willing to conceal or hide the fact that she has married Christians and had a child outside marriage. Consequently, I conclude that if she were not targeted by her immediate family, that she would have serious difficulty from orthodox Muslims and would have serious problems as a single woman to be able to live on her own in an IFA.

CONCLUSION

[24]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the principal claimant is a “Convention refugee” and I accept her claim.

[25]     For the reasons above, I conclude that the US child claimants are not “Convention refugees” under section 96 of IRPA or “persons in need of protection” within the meaning of section 97 (l)(a) or (b) of IRPA. Their claims are rejected.

(signed)           Jeffrey Brian Gullickson

August 2, 2019

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 193

Citation: 2019 RLLR 193
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 21, 2019
Panel: K. Khamsi
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Samir N Roman
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-24464
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001013-001016

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

[2]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       You allege the following: That you face persecution in Egypt at the hands of the Muslim brotherhood because of your religion.

[4]       You have been targeted by the Muslim brothers because of the work you do in church with those Christians who converted to Islam under duress.

[5]       Muslim extremists have kidnapped your ex-girlfriend and your wife and have killed the priest you used to work with.

[6]       You are afraid to be killed by Muslim extremists if you refuse to convert to Islam.

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

[8]       I find that your identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided such as your passport. Your religious identity was established by the supporting documents you have provided in exhibit 5.

Nexus

[9]       I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of religion.

Credibility

[10]     You have provided a narrative that is consistent with country conditions. Your profile as a Coptic Christian was also well documented. Where fear is due to cumulative acts of discrimination or harassment, the issue of delay cannot be used to impugn subjective fear solely.1 This delay in departure does not undermine your overall credibility.

[11]     When considering the totality of the evidence I find that your written evidence is supported by reliable corroborating documents, and find that you have a credible subjective fear.

Objectively well-founded

[12]     Your fear of persecution is based on being Coptic Christian. You have experienced persecution and discrimination amounting to persecution as Coptic Christian, and this is supported by the documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt.

[13]     Christians represent five to ten percent of the Egyptian population, and of those 90 percent are Coptic. The Coptic Christian community have continued to experience discrimination and intimidation because of their religious beliefs, particularly in areas where there are many Muslim Brotherhood supporters. They continue to be the target of sectarian violence.

[14]     While there is evidence that violence has decreased following the incidents that shook the Coptic community in 2013; discrimination and violence remain a problem. There are reports of large numbers of assaults on Coptic Christians as well as prosecutions for proselytizing, blasphemy and denigration of religion.

State protection

[15]     I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case based on country conditions. It is noted in the NDP that the police and authorities do not intervene to protect Coptic Christians who are victims of criminal acts. Where a Coptic Christian victim wants to go forward with prosecution of a violent crime, the reliable documentary evidence suggests that crimes committed against Coptic Christians are dealt with slowly which fosters an atmosphere of impunity overall. This is also consistent with the claimant’s experiences.

Internal flight alternative (IFA)

[16]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. Coptic Christians are exposed to risk of persecution in all areas of the country, and given your profile, Coptic Christians who are active in their religious community, it would be unreasonable for you to seek refuge in any part of the country.

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           K. KHAMSI

November 21, 2019

1 Shah, Mahmood Ali v. M.C.l. (F.C., no. IMM-4425-02), Blanchard, September 30, 2003, 2003 FC 1121.

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 192

Citation: 2019 RLLR 192
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 3, 2019
Panel: P. Gueller
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Namita Dass
Country: Egypt
RPD Number:
TB9-09802
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000944-000948

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, the claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a 45-year-old woman who is a citizen of Egypt and holds no other citizenship. Is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       In rendering my reasons I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s guidelines on women refugee claimants fearing gender related persecution.

Determination:

[3]       I find the claimant is a Convention refugee as she has established a well-founded fear of persecution based on the Convention ground, namely, her membership in a particular social group because of her religion.

Identity:

[4]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt has been established by her testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely, a copy of her passport. She also confirmed today at the hearing that she has no permanent resident or citizenship status in any country other than Egypt.

Nexus:

[5]       I find that you have each established a nexus to Section 96 by reason of religion.

Allegations:

[6]       In the claimant’s Basis of Claim Form she indicates that she fears persecution if she were to return to Egypt because of her religion as she is a Coptic Orthodox Christian.

[7]       She also stated that she lived in Egypt her entire life.

[8]       The claimant alleges that she is a Coptic Christian from Cairo, Egypt. She was harassed, pressured, and threatened to be killed by an ex-co-worker to convert to Islam. Because of that she was pressured to move to different locations to avoid her persecutor.

[9]       She divorced her husband who converted to Islam before the definitive divorce certificate that was issued in June 2016.

[10]     In mid-documents 2018 she was attacked by two women that forced her into a microbus, hitting her and tried to force her to announce her Islam.

[11]     On a few occasions she went to visit her father in Kuwait to escape temporarily leave the persecution. However, there was no option for her to stay permanently in Kuwait.

[12]     She fears harm because of her religion and gender should the … should she return to Egypt.

[13]     The claimant arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019 and applied for asylum on April 5, 2019.

Analysis:

Credibility:

[14]     I find the claimant to be credible witness testifying in a straightforward manner. There were minor inconsistencies between your testimony and the documents before me or between your oral and written testimonies.

[15]     Coptic Christians is a religious minority in Egypt.

[16]     I have considered the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence in support of her allegations. Like the certificate of baptism and her national identity card at Exhibit 5.

[17]     I asked how you would be identified in your country. Either outside or by your documentation, you indicated you wear a cross as a pendant and you don’t wear a scarf over your hair and wear … wear some clothes.

[18]     You said that you were practicing Christian in your country attending church twice a week and have been baptized twice.

[19]     On a balance of probabilities, I find it is reasonable that you would be identified as a Christian in your home country through your appearance and actions, as well as through your identification documents.

[20]     The claimant testified as to the personal difficulties. She has suffered aggression, violence, and persecution prior to coming to Canada. This occurred on the street, in your workplace, and with your ex­ husband that converted to Islam.

[21]     The claimant went to the police but they refused to take report because she did not know the complete information of her persecutor.

[22]     I have considered the claimant’s testimony and also the objective evidence regarding the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt today.

[23]     A response of … to information request in the National Documentation Package for Egypt outlines widespread societal violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt. According to the RIR attacks against Coptic Christian’s homes and buildings, as well as physical assaults against Coptic persons in Alexandria are a regular occurrence. The same RIR also outlines similar attacks throughout the country including numerous attacks by terrorist groups directed at Coptic Christians.

[24]     The United States Department of State international religious freedom report for Egypt reports that Coptic Christians throughout Egypt face societal discrimination in their daily lives.

[25]     A report by the United States Religious Freedom Commission states that human rights groups reported more than 120 sectarian attacks including mob attacks against Christians and churches. And the Jack of effective prosecution of perpetrators remained a serious concern.

[26]     A series of attacks in 2017 by affiliates of the terrorist group the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, targeted houses of worship including attacks against churches and Christians that resulted in almost 100 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

[27]     Sources indicate that the Christian minority is victim of aggression, violation, kidnapping, and extortion. This is coherent with your allegations of violence and aggressions which you have claimed to have suffered in your country.

[28]     In consideration of the ensemble of the evidence I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has established a well-founded fear of persecution if she has to return to Egypt for reasons of her religion.

State Protection:

[29]     I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of State protection with clear and convincing evidence that the Egyptian State would be unwilling or unable to provide her with adequate protection.

[30]     I have considered whether or not State protection would be adequate for the claimant in Egypt at this time.

[31]     According to the objective evidence the Egyptian authorities have not only been tolerant of violence and discrimination against the Christian minority, they have been engaged in acts of violence as well.

[32]     There are reports indicated … indicating that there have been a certain number of arrests for violence committed against the Christianity minority. However, they are very limited.

[33]     I note the objective evidence confirms that the authorities tolerate violence and they are slow to act if they do act at all to protect members of religious minorities from discrimination and violence.

[34]     A report by the United States Religious Freedom Commission finds that authorities in Egypt routinely pressured Christians to drop charges against Muslims.

[35]     A Human Rights Watch report describes the response by authorities to violence against Christians in Egypt as indifferent.

[36]     Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, based on the claimant’s credible allegations and the documentary evidence before me I find that State protection would not be adequate for her at this time in Egypt.

Internal Flight Alternative:

[37]     I have also considered whether or not an internal flight alternative would be available to the claimant. The objective evidence indicates that the situation for Christians is difficult in all areas of Egypt. That Christian’s persecution is widespread throughout Egypt.

[38]     Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt and as a consequence there is no viable internal flight alternative for her anywhere in the country.

Conclusion:

[39]     I find that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon her return to Egypt based on her religion. Therefore, her claim is accepted. The claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee.

[40]     COUNSEL: Thank you, Member. ———- REASONS CONCLUDED ——-

Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 191

Citation: 2019 RLLR 191
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: April 24, 2019
Panel: Harvey Savage
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Pablo Andres Irribarra Valdes
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-12819
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003277-003280

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

[2]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.

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

[4]       In rendering my reasons, I have considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Proceedings Before the IRB Involving Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression.

ALLEGATIONS

[5]       You allege the following: You allege that you have sexual attractions to both men and women. You have acted on both of these attractions and have had several sexual relationships with women in Egypt. You have also travelled extensively but did not consider making asylum claims in other countries since you were not aware that this was an option. However, you have not had any open same sex relationships since you fear having them in a repressive country like Egypt. You fear that you would be arrested by police and also suffer societal disapproval in this predominantly Muslim society. You came to Toronto on a visit in 2018 and intended to return to Egypt until you received legal advice and guidance that fear of state sanctions because of your sexual orientation was a possible ground for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7]       I find that your identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided, your national ID card and passport.

Nexus

[8]       I find that you have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of sexual orientation.

Credibility

[9]       Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues. In particular, the evidence establishes the allegations as set out above. I read your long, very detailed narrative and some psychological reports that were in the file. After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt their authenticity.

Objective basis of future risk

[10]     Based on the credibility of your allegations, and the documentary evidence set out below, I find that you have established a future risk that you will be subjected to the following harm. Although same sex relationships are not explicitly forbidden in Egypt, the documentary materials state that the authorities often use the language “debauchery” in legislation to apply to members of the LGBTQ communities, and this raises a strong possibility that openly gay persons could be liable to criminal prosecution and to persecution by authorities.

[11]     The fact that you face this risk is corroborated by the following documents: National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt – March 29, 2019 items, 5.1 and 6.1.

Nature of the harm

[12]     This harm clearly amounts to persecution.

State protection

[13]     I find that adequate state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming in this particular case. The agent of persecution is the state.

Internal flight alternative

[14]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for you. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. The agent of persecution is the state.

[15]     On the evidence before me, I find that it is not objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to you, for you to seek refuge in Egypt for the following reasons. The agent of persecution is the state.

CONCLUSION

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

(signed)           HARVEY SAVAGE

April 24, 2019