Category: Egypt

Citation: 2019 RLLR 190
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 22, 2019
Panel: P. Gueller
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amro Hayek
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-04856
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-04866, TB9-04887, TB9-04888
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000890-000897

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the minors XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens from Egypt. The associate claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen of Jordan. The claimants are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act)¹.

[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 all the claimants to be Convention Refugees as they have established a well- founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely they are convention refugees based on the convention ground of religion.

IDENTITY

[4]       The principal claimant’s identity and the two minors as nationals of Egypt and the associate claimant identity as a national of Jordan, are established through their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely their passports.²

PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The principal claimant alleges he cannot return to Egypt because he would be persecuted by his family and the authorities because he has converted from Islam to Christianity.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[6]       The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. Both claimants testified in a straightforward and consistent manner. Their oral testimony was consistent with the Basis of Claim form (BOC)³. I find the claimants to be credible witnesses on a balance of probabilities.

[7]       The principal claimant has established his identity as a Christian convert by providing documentary evidence in support of his allegations.⁴

• Baptism certificate
• Photographs of his Baptism
• Recommendation Letter from his church “Family Rescue International Ministries”
• Translation of the telephone chat about his conversion between his wife and her sister

[8]       The principal claimant testified that he attended Christian school when he was a child and living in Syria, so he was able to be in contact with Christian teachers and friends. After moving with his family to Saudi Arabia, he was told by his parents that he had to forget what he learned about Christianity.

[9]       He stated that his parents had a car accident, where his mother passed away and his father lost both legs, and that was a breakthrough moment in his life about religion and being more conscious that he wanted to know more about Christianity. He had many unanswered questions about Islam and he approached Muslim clerics for explanations because he felt a lack of spiritual fulfillment. The claimant alleges that since his mother passed away, he questioned his religion and the Islamic principles to which he had to adhere to.

[10]     The principal claimant stated that he had a temporary working visa in Saudi Arabia and in XXXX 2018, he decided to quit his job and come to Canada to join his wife, because she was studying in Canada.

[11]     Upon his arrival to Canada, he felt confident to start inquiring about Christianity and through a co-worker he found the church where he is attending now.

[12]     His wife testified that the principal claimant told her about his intention to convert to Christianity in January 2019. Because she did not know how to convince him not to do it, she called her and his family asking for help. She stated that the reaction of both families was the same, to threaten him that they will kill him if he converts to Christianity. Also, that her family, specifically told her that she had to divorce him and return to Jordan, leaving the children with him, otherwise, she would also face being killed if she returns to Jordan.

[13]     The associate claimant stated that she and the principal claimant came to an agreement that she understands he could practice his faith and be able to continue their life together.

[14]     The principal claimant also testified that even though he would be able to obtain citizenship for his wife in Egypt, because he has converted to Christianity, his whole family will be persecuted there, by religious extremists and the state.

[15]     After reviewing all of the evidence, I find the claimant’s evidence to be consistent. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the claimant’s account. As such, I find the claimant to be credible with respect to his material allegations: specifically, that he is a Christian convert Egyptian citizen who will be targeted by Muslims and radicals because of his conversion to Christianity.

MINORS

[16]     The principal claimant alleged and testified that in Egypt or Jordan, his children would be abused and discriminated against for having a father that is a Christian convert and that they would face harassment and persecution.

[17]     The NDP documentary evidence shows that “Media sources report on the case of a father who had converted to Christianity from Islam who faced mistreatment when attempting to leave the country with his daughter (Compass Direct News 22 Apr. 2011; Porte Ouvertes 30 mars 2011). The father wanted to bring the daughter out of the country as it was not possible to change his ID card (ibid.; Compass Direct News 22 Apr. 2011). According to news agency Compass Direct News, the two had to obtain a court order granting them permission to leave the country (ibid.)”⁵

[18]     I have considered the impact that the principal’s claimant conversion to Christianity will have into the minors’ life if they were to return to Egypt. Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that also the minors will be facing harassment and discrimination if they were to return to Egypt.

[19]     In addition, the minors will not be able to obtain Jordanian citizenship through their mother, as according to the NDP:

“In Jordan, a child born to a Jordanian mother and a non-Jordanian father is considered a noncitizen in the eyes of the state. In violation of international human rights law, which obliges Jordan not to discriminate against women, Jordanian law allows only fathers to pass citizenship to their children. It does not allow Jordanian women to even confer automatic long-term residency on their children. Despite government promises to grant these individuals key economic and social rights, non-citizen children of Jordanian women continue to face legal restrictions that trap many of them at the margins of Jordanian society.”⁶

[20]     Therefore, I find, that the minors do not have access to any other citizenship than Egypt, where they will be facing harassment by the authorities and neighbors, on a balance of probabilities.

Likelihood of Harm – serious possibility and objective evidence

[21]     I find that the claimant has established that he and his children have a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Egypt due to his identity as a Christian convert.

[22]     The International Religious Freedom Report for 2015⁷ for Egypt discusses the current level of religious tolerance in Egypt. Specifically, with respect to Christian converts. It states:

“Lethal sectarian violence continued over the year, and included the killing of a convert to Christianity by her Muslim family and the targeting of Christians in North Sinai based on their religious identity. The construction of churches continued to be met with societal resistance, including acts of violence. Such violence occurred in connection with construction of a new church approved by the president in El- ‘Our, the village from which came a majority of the 20 Egyptian Copts killed in Libya in February. In many cases, individuals charged with denigration of religion also faced societal violence or threats of violence, according to Christian leaders.”

[23]     A Response to Information Request (RIR)⁸ issued by the Board on November 27, 2013 entitled: Egypt: Whether people who have converted from Islam to Christianity, particularly those converts who have been arrested, are able to obtain passports and leave the country (April 2010-November 2013) states:

“Muslim converts to Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam tantamount to treason” (Associate Professor 8 Nov. 2013). Similarly, in correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a board member of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada stated that authorities will attempt to dissuade someone from converting from Islam to Christianity and may arbitrarily imprison the person alongside “dangerous criminals” if they insist on converting (Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada 13 Nov. 2013).

[24]     I find that adequate state protection will not be available to the principal and minor claimants if they were to return to Egypt. Objective evidence indicates that the authorities not only fail to protect Coptic Christians and Christian converts, but themselves engage in violence against such persons, while perpetrators of attacks against Christians commit abuses in a climate of impunity.⁹ I find that the claimant’s evidence, when considered together with the objective evidence, is a clear and convincing rebuttal of the presumption of state protection.

[25]     Having considered the claimant’s evidence as well as the objective evidence contained in the NDP and counsel’s package of disclosure¹⁰, I find there is a serious possibility that the principal and minor claimants would be persecuted upon return to Egypt because of the principal claimant’s conversion to Christianity. The principal claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Egypt by reason of being a Christian convert and the minors because they will be harassed by having a Christian father.

IFA

[26]     The evidence does not suggest that the religiously-motivated violence is restricted to a particular area of Egypt, or that individuals in the claimant’s situation could find safety elsewhere¹¹. The NDP documentary evidence states that Christians are being persecuted in Egypt as converting to Christianity from Islam is considered an offence, and the person will have “difficulty dealing with officials and neighbors … The Associate Professor added that “Muslim converts ta Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam”.¹²

[27]     As such, I find that the claimants cannot avail themselves of a viable internal flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[28]     For the reasons set out above, I find the principal claimant and the minors are Convention refugees and I accept their claim.

(signed)           PAULINA GUELLER  

October 22, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 1

3 Exhibit 2

4 Exhibit 6

5 NDP Egypt 12.7

6 NDP Jordan 3.9

7 Exhibit 3, item 12.1.

8  Exhibit 3, 12.7 Egypt: Whether people who have converted from Islam to Christianity, particularly those converts who have been arrested, are able to obtain passports and leave the country (April 2010- November 2013)

9 Exhibit 3, Item 12.8, Egypt: Situation and treatment of Christians; availability of state protection.

10 Exhibit 5

11 Exhibit 3, Item 12.5: Sectarian Attacks Amid Political Crisis.

12 NDP Egypt 12.7

Citation: 2019 RLLR 189
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 25, 2019
Panel: Y. Rozenszajn
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A. Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-04266
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000885-000889

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, I’ve considered the testimony and the other evidence in the case and counsel’s submissions and I’m ready to render my decision orally. The audio recording of the decision forms the … the legal basis for the decision. A transcription is also produced of these reasons but the transcription does not actually get reviewed for any type of spelling errors or grammar. So, if there’s any doubt as to what the transcript actually says reliance must be had or recourse must be had to the original audio recording which is … will be found on a CD-ROM and produced to the parties in due course.

[2]       The claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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.

[3]       By way of determination I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee for the following reasons. I find that he’s established a serious possibility of persecution based upon the Convention ground of religion or alternatively political opinion or even particular social group, and that is a atheist in Egypt.

[4]       The claimant’s allegations are set out in Exhibit 2 and what he says is basically that over time he grew to dislike Islam. He just decided to not agree with a lot of tenets. He was exposed to other people who are Christians and … and they sort of opened his eyes to other possibilities and … and also as a … as a scientist and as an engineering student he became to understand more about science and how science is may be in conflict with Islam, and so he became more and more an atheist.

[5]       He alleges that in the last two years of university between 2016 and 2018 he was debating … really just having discussions with colleagues who are Muslim in university about the … the meaning of Islam and atheism and all sorts of other political issues such as women’s rights and gay rights, and how Islam is just not really compliant with I guess the more understanding of what these human rights, how they should be … be respected.

[6]       And he alleges that eventually he’s … he came to the attention of the Muslim Brotherhood who asked him to come and … and pray with them so they can talk to him about these things. And he sort of avoided them for a while, but eventually he started getting threats by February 2018 from the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in the area, the imam, and he … and he complied because they threatened his life if he wasn’t going to meet with them.

[7]       So, he met about three or four times with the imam and the more they talked to him the more he, in fact, really disliked Islam and decided it was a violent religion. And eventually he had a blow out with the imam and he (inaudible) on him.

[8]       Nothing really happened though after that. Allegedly, the most that happened was then a relative of the imam who was a police officer called him and threatened him to change his ways, and the claimant basically told him that he will, and sort of avoided the police officer.

[9]       And a few months afterwards he basically left the country with the help of his dad and his dad’s friend Mr. XXXX(ph) who is actually here today.

[10]     And the claimant then fears returning to Egypt because they mistreat atheists, and he fears either being killed by the Muslim Brotherhood or the government itself.

[11]     Now, in terms of his identity, the claimant’s identity as an Egyptian is established by his … by his testimony and the supporting documentation, namely, the passport and the identity card which also confirms that he was designated as birth … at birth as a Muslim which is something that, according to the NDP, is known, that Egypt designates people by religion from their birth according to their parents. And so we know that the government designates him as a Muslim man. That all (inaudible) in Exhibit 1, the originals of the Minister.

[12]     In terms of credibility, I found the claimant to be a credible witness and I believe what he’s alleged in support of his claim. He testified in a straightforward manner and there’s really no relevant inconsistencies or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me.

[13]     I accept his testimony and … and explanations for why he would even hangout with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a known terrorist listed entity in … in Egypt, and that he was afraid that if he wasn’t going to comply after trying to avoid them for months, they would eventually just going to kill him.

[14]     So, I accept his evidence in that regard. I don’t … you know, I find that I accept he was afraid, more afraid to not meet with them because it would appear that they were really trying to reconvert him back to Islam and he wanted to just play along while he was trying finish his schooling, given that there’s only a few months left.

[15]     I also accept counsel’s submission that in the context of this case the … the omission of the imam’s name is really … should not be held as a determinative issue for credibility.

[16]     Ultimately, it’s clear that the claimant did not really suffer actual past persecution though. This is more of a future persecution case because ultimately nothing happened and there’s no evidence that any type of blasphemy case was actually launched against the claimant.

[17]     While he appears to have used Mr. XXXX to get out of Egypt, there’s really nothing unusual about that and the person … and it appears there have been no bribes paid or anything of that sort because Mr. XXXX basically accompanies all sorts of people outside of Egypt including his own family, and just because he’s a friend in the … in the airport.

[18]     There’s really no evidence to indicate that the Government of Egypt is currently looking for the claimant or that the Muslim Brotherhood is even looking to do anything else to the claimant except just report him to the … the police relative of the imam.

[19]     Really, the issue is what will happen to the claimant in the future, and I find looking at the objective documentation in the NDP, I find that it is sufficient to establish that he would face a serious risk of persecution based on either being perceived as an atheist or his political opinions over his lack of religion which is sufficient for a religious nexus.

[20]     The … the International Religious Freedom report from the US DOS for Egypt that’s Item 12.9 contains numerous citations for individuals who have been arrested for blasphemy or denigration of religion for basically being atheist, and a lot of it it’s got to do with social media presence which generates a paper trail, and these people get arrested and go to jail and they get mistreated in jail as well.

[21]     There’s also a report about even two potential atheist individuals who were arrested, not because of any public blasphemy but rather because they themselves were exchanging private messages about atheism, and that was enough even for them to get arrested just for that, so, private conduct.

[22]     And that really appears to be only … it’s not even a complaint by the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s really just a … was a complaint of a restaurant owner who simply just reported these two people, these two employee cooks to the authorities who then actually acted on that complaint and arrested them.

[23]     And all of that really indicates that, you know, serious persecution on a forward-looking basis for really just texting each other.

[24]     So, all of that is really, in my view, a serious possibility of persecution against the claimant if … as his being … as he is an atheist as I accept that he is, a serious possibility of it. And I find that that is sufficient to establish not only a credible fear but also a serious risk of persecution that amounts to persecution.

[25]     There’s also the fear of the Muslim Brotherhood as well and the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. And while I find that there may be State protection against the Muslim Brotherhood in the … in theory, Item 2.1 of the NDP does indicate that the government does act fairly quickly and fairly violently against any Muslim Brotherhood that (inaudible) attacked.

[26]     I find that in the case of the claimant that State protection would not be forthcoming. Would actually get him into more trouble because while it may be true that he could have reported the Muslim Brotherhood people that he met in university they would have been arrested, I would find, and probably executed, the problem is … that I accept his evidence that he also would have a serious possibility that he also would have been arrested for blasphemy and then he would have himself been sent to jail on blasphemy charges potentially or … or denigrating religion, given his atheistic views that he was publicly expounding to other people.

[27]     And so I find that State protection would not be forthcoming in his case and it’s also not reasonable for him to seek State protection given that he is an atheist. He would be a vulnerable minority which is also targeted by the government at the same time as the Muslim Brotherhood. So, I find that he’s rebutted the presumption of State protection.

[28]     That leaves the question of internal flight alternative, and I find that because the fear is also from the government and the government is known to be an agent of persecution against atheistic people through the courts and through the police, and there’s no evidence that anywhere in Egypt is a … is safe for the claimant from the government and from this type of persecution.

[29]     I find that … that renders any IFA including Giza or Alexandria to be not … not viable under the first prong of the test. There’s therefore no need to … to speak to the second prong of the test.

[30]     Accordingly, I find that … I find that the claimant has met all the … the elements of the Convention refugee definition. I also found that his … his witness Mr. XXXX was also credible in his own right.

[31]     I find … therefore find him to be a Convention refugee under the … the Convention ground of religion or the alternative political opinion or the alternative as a particular social group and I therefore accept his claim.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2019 RLLR 188
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 5, 2019
Panel: P. Gueller
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Namita Dass
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-01279
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-01335
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000838-000848

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       The principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen from Egypt. The associate claimant, XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), is a citizen of Iran. Both are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97of the Immigration Protection Act (the Act).

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

DETERMINATION

[3]       I find both claimants to be Convention Refugees as they have established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely they are convention refugees based on the convention ground of religion.

IDENTITY

[4]       The principal claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt and the associate claimant’s identity as a national of Iran are established, on a balance of probabilities, through their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely their passport.

PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT ALLEGATIONS

[5]       The principal claimant alleges he cannot return to Egypt because he would be persecuted by the Salafists as he is a Muslim Sunni married to the Associate claimant, who belongs to a different religion, as she is a Muslim Shia.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[6]       The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. I find the principal claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities.

[7]       The principal claimant testified in a straightforward and credible manner. His oral testimony was consistent with his Basis of Claim form (BOC) and he provided documentary evidence in support of his allegations: 

• Birth, divorce and Marriage certificate
• University degree
• Letter from his employer
• Affidavit from Maspero Youth Foundation For Development and Human Rights 

[8]       The claimant testified that he married his wife in Kuwait and despite having different religions they lived without complications. Both claimants had temporary work visas in Kuwait.

[9]       The claimants have a Canadian born son. The principal claimant stated that they came to Canada in XXXX 2017 for tourism and the associate claimant was pregnant. She had some medical complications and was advised not to travel. Consequently, their son was born in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017. After that, both claimants returned to Kuwait.

[10]     In XXXX 2018 they went to Iran to visit his wife’s family. They were detained at Shiraz Airport and both were questioned about his Egyptian nationality, his religion and whether he was spreading his religion into Iran. He also testified that they were monitored in Iran and were called to report to the police station to be interrogated about his activities in Iran. After the last interrogation at the police station, he left Iran the following day.

[11]     He testified that he had a temporary work visa in Kuwait. In September 2018, his employment was terminated and he was not able to stay because his visa expired with the termination of his employment. Consequently, they returned to Egypt to look for jobs.

[12]     He testified that upon returning to Egypt, The Salafists, an extremist Muslim group in Egypt, started to threaten him because he was married to a woman that is from Iran and Shia. He also testified that he went to the police to report the incidents, however the police did not want to issue a report and he was told by the police to divorce his wife and amend things with the Salafists. The claimant testified that after living two months in Cairo, he moved to 6th of October City, to escape the harassment and persecution.

[13]     The claimant testified that after one week of living in 6th of October City, the Salafists appeared outside his home shouting that he was a disbeliever and threating him, asking him to come outside. He called the police for protection, however, when the police arrived the claimant was the one that was detained by the police. After he was taken to the police station, his wife called a friend for help. Their friend was able to hide her and their son in Alexandria.

[14]     The claimant stated that he remained in detention at the police station and was released the following morning. He went back to his home and could not find his wife and son and became terrified thinking that his family could have been killed by the extremists. Because he was found by the extremists despite having moving to 6^th of October City, he realized that they would be able to find him everywhere, because they are a group with connections over the whole country. He started to look for help, and a friend referred him to the Youth Foundation For Development and Human Rights, where he was advised to leave Egypt as soon as possible and go to Canada because his son has a Canadian passport and they had valid Canadian visas.

[15]     The claimant also testified that he would not have been able to move to Iran, his wife’s country of nationality, because he will be persecuted for his nationality and religion. In addition, a man cannot obtain Iranian nationality through his Iranian wife.

[16]     He testified that they left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and arrived in Canada the same day.

[17]     I also note, that the documentary evidence in the NDP concerning the treatment of different groups of Muslims in Egypt is that:

“the predominant school of Islam practiced in Egypt is Sunni. While Egypt also has a number of smaller Muslim groups, including Ahmadis, Quranists and Shi’a, these communities have faced marginalization, discrimination and persecution due to widespread misunderstandings about their faith, with their practitioners frequently cast as threats to national stability and Sunni beliefs. Given the prominent role that powerful religious bodies such as AlAzhar continue to play in Egyptian society, as well as the strong support they command from many members of the country ‘s security forces and judiciary, non-Sunni Muslim groups still face a range of restrictions in their ability to freely practice and express their faith”

…

“Another instance where blasphemy charges have been used was the case of Amr Abdalla, a Shi’a activist who was arrested in November 2013 at the Imam Hussein mosque as he attempted to commemorate Ashura and subsequently detained in Gamalia police station, when a blasphemy misdemeanor was filed against him. In February 2014, he received a five-year prison sentence for religious blasphemy. The judge argued that while freedom of belief is constitutionally guaranteed, if is not absolute as it should not lead to ideas. thoughts or beliefs that ‘oppose the rules and foundation of religion, revealed law or morals. ”

…

“Hate speech against Shi’a is widespread. Its sources vary from prominent religious institutions, such as the Ministry of Endowment and Al-Azhar, to the country’s media. The latter has regularly showcased articles promoting hatred against the community, including accusations that Shi’a are ‘traitors’ and promoting foreign agendas.”

[18]     According to information in the NDP, Shia Muslims and their supporters are being persecuted, marginalized and harassed in Egypt. On a balance of probabilities, I accept the claimant’s allegations that he can be personally persecuted for being married to a Shia woman. In addition, the NDP also states that interfaith marriages are not accepted by extremists, like the Salafists, and the majority of the Sunni Muslim community; and are not permitted under the Sharia law, unless the woman converts to be a Sunni Muslim.

[19]     For all these reasons, considering the claimant’s credible allegations and documentary evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant faces more than a mere possibility of persecution if he returns to Egypt because of his interfaith marriage.

State protection

[20]     The claimant stated that he was harassed during his time in Cairo, and despite moving to 6^th of October City, the Salafist were able to find him. Moreover, when the Salafist came to his home to harass him, despite calling the police for protection, he was the one that was detained because of the Salafist’s allegations.

[21]     I find that the claimant has provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection.

[22]     The information in the NDP is that Shia supporters do not find protection from the authorities or the judicial system:

“Another instance where blasphemy charges have been used was the case of Amr Abdalla, a Shi’a activist who was arrested in November 2013 at the Imam Hussein mosque as he attempted to commemorate Ashura and subsequently detained in Gamalia police station, when a blasphemy misdemeanor was filed against him. ln February 2014, he received a five-year prison sentence for religious blasphemy. The judge argued that while freedom of belief is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute as it should not lead to ideas, thoughts or beliefs that ‘oppose the rules and foundation of religion, revealed law or morals’. The judge in his reasoning stated that the defendant was guilty of ‘propagating thought and belief that contravenes that which the overwhelming majority of Egyptians and Egyptian society belong to and believe.’₉₇

ln the same manner, possession of Shi’a publications has been used to indict Shi’a believers of religious blasphemy. In May 2015, “‘Mahmoud Dahroug, a dentist from the Dakahlia governorate, received a reduced sentence of six months in prison for ‘religion blasphemy’ for the possession of publications that contained Shi’a doctrines. While a number of violations took place during the arrest and interrogation, he was charged with blasphemy and accused of carrying publications that threatened national security.” ₉₈₁

…

“Rather than protecting Shi’a worshippers, security forces have continued to cooperate with groups who actively incite against them: in September 2017, for instance, a leading anti-Shi’a agitator pledged to report Shi’a visiting the Imam Hussein Mosque to security forces to prevent them practicing their rituals. This is despite the face that members of the Coalition have engaged in a number of attacks against Shi’a, including an attack on 23 June 2013 against a group of Shi’a practicing a ritual in a private home in Abu Musallim that saw a large crowd, led by Salafist preachers, launch an assault with stones and Molotov cocktails.

Police, having attempted unsuccessfully to halt the attack, withdrew and four Shi’a men were subsequently beaten to death while others, including women and children, were injured. In June 2015, convictions were finally handed out to 23 people (10 in absentia) for the deaths, each of whom received 14-year sentences, while eight others were acquitted.₁₀₂  However, there has been no prosecution of those who contributed to the incitement against the victims, including the Salafist preachers who had engaged in weeks of hate speech prior to the attack.”²

[23]     I find therefore, on a balance of probabilities, that according to evidence before me, authority protection may not be operational in Egypt. I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that state protection would not be adequate for the principal claimant if he were to return to Egypt.

IFA

[24]     Based on the claimant’s testimony and NDP documentary evidence, Salafist groups are all over the country, in addition the authorities may not be able to protect him or may not take his requests for protection seriously. Concurrently, the NDP suggests that there are situations where the police had to withdraw because their interventions were unsuccessful.

[25]     Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, there is no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimant. The evidence suggests that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon return to Egypt based on religion, him being married to a Shia woman.

[26]     Therefore, his claim is accepted. The principal claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee.

ASSOCIATED CLAIMANT ALLEGATIONS

[27]     The associated claimant alleges she cannot return to Iran because she would be persecuted by the authorities because she is a Muslim Shia and married to the principal claimant, who is a Sunni Muslim.

ANALYSIS

Credibility

[28]     The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. I find the associated claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities.

[29]     The associated claimant testified in a straightforward and credible manner. Her oral testimony was consistent with her Basis of Claim form (BOC) and she provided documentary evidence in support of her allegations:

• Birth, divorce and Marriage certificate
• University degree
• Letter from his employer

[30]     The evidence on the NDP is that Sunni Muslims are being harassed, arrested and threatened in Iran:

“According to sources wishing to remain anonymous, 15 Arabs who converted from Shia to Sunni Islam were sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment on 21 February 2013. They were reportedly detained in an unknown location for 21 days after their arrests on 17 January 2012…. They were reportedly charged with spreading propaganda against the system by promoting Wahhabism and Salafism, holding group prayers, questioning the official religion of the country, producing and distributing deviant books, communicating with salafist and takfirist groups (groups accusing others of apostasy) and participating in the religious courses of salafist and takfirist elements.³

[31]     The associate claimant’s testimony was that she and her husband were detained and interrogated at the airport and at the police station; and, also followed and monitored during their stay in Iran, because her husband is a Sunni Muslim. Therefore, she was scared thinking that she was going to be arrested and will disappear like many other people who are accused of becoming a Sunni Muslim convert, or a supporter of their religion. The claimant also stated that her mother asked her not to come back. As a consequence, subsequent to the experience with the authorities and the memory of her detention and harassment from her teenage years, she left Iran and have not returned. Her credible testimony is supported by the evidence in the NDP regarding authorities persecuting Sunni Muslims.

[32]     Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find, that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant would be persecuted if she returns to Iran, because she is married to a Sunni Muslim.

State protection

[33]     Through the associate claimant’s credible testimony, she has established that the authorities persecuted her when she was visiting Iran because she is married to a Sunni Muslim. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the associate claimant has provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection.

[34]     I also note, that the documentary evidence in the NDP concerning the treatment of Muslims in Iran that:

“The July 2014 USDOS report notes that during the reporting year 2013, “[t]here were reports of arrests and harassment” of members of the Sunni community including “Sunni clerics and congregants “, noting that “[s]ecurity officials continued to raid prayer sites belonging to Sunnis”. The same source also quotes human rights organisations as reporting “several instances of due process violations” against Sunnis.”

The NDP also notes that “Among the sources consulted by ACCORD, no further information could be found on the treatment of persons living in mixed religious marriages.”⁴ Nevertheless, according to the evidence in the NDP about the persecution and harassment of the Sunni Muslims in Iran by the authorities, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is more than a mere possibility that the associate claimant will be persecuted by the authorities because she is married to a Sunni Muslim if she returns to Iran.

[35]     Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, considering the claimant’s credible allegations and the documentary evidence before me, I find that state protection would not be adequate for the associate claimant if she were to return to Iran, because the agent of persecution is the Iranian state.

IFA

[36]     Based on the claimant testimony and NDP documentary evidence, I find, on a balance of probabilities, there is no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimant. The evidence suggests that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon return to Iran based on religion for being married to a Sunni man.

[37]     Therefore, her claim is accepted. The associate claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee.

CONCLUSION

[38]     I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is more than a mere possibility that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, will be persecuted if he returns to Egypt and that the associate claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, will be persecuted if she returns to Iran, because of their religion, based on their interfaith marriage.

[39]     Therefore, both claimants are recognized as Convention refugees.

(signed)           P. GUELLER

November 5, 2019

1 Egypt NDP 13.2 page 19

2 Ibid

3 Exhibit 3

4 Ibid

Citation: 2019 RLLR 186
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 1, 2019
Panel: Yonatan Rozenszajn
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amro Hayek
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-32362
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000802-000808

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

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

[3]       Written submissions were received from claimant’s counsel June 18, 2019 which I duly considered.¹ On June 21, 2019, the claimant filed a good colour copy of her IRCC internet portal page.² The Minister filed the claimant’s visa application to Canada as well as a colour copy of her passport in response to the Board’s post hearing requests.³

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The claimant’s allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim form (“BOC”).⁴ She amended her narrative on two other occasions.⁵ In summary, the claimant alleges that since childhood she was interested in Christianity. She alleges that around the age of 35, she started attending several Sunday church services when she was in Europe on routine business trips through her Europecar employer where numerous Christians worked. She alleges that she visited Canada in XXXX and XXXX 2016, attending church on both occasions and learning about Christianity. She alleges that she returned to Egypt and told her parents about her beliefs and Christianity. They responded badly and got her to resign from Europecar. The fact of her Christian beliefs became known and she started receiving threats and having garbage thrown at her by neighbours. She fled to Canada in XXXX 2018. After extending her visa once, she learned that her case may be eligible for refugee protection in Canada she made arrangement to commence a claim in November 2018.

DETERMINATION

[5]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as she has established a serious possibility of persecution on account of religion.

ANALYSIS

[6]       The determinative issue in this case is whether the claimant provided sufficient credible evidence to establish the basis of her claim, namely the genuineness of her alleged conversion to Christianity from Islam.

Identity – personal and national

[7]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt has been established, on a balance of probabilities, by a valid Arab Republic of Egypt passport⁶ that was seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.

Identity—religious

[8]       The claimant has also established her identity as a convert from Islam to Christianity by her testimony and by way of her personal documentation, including the following: a national identity card which list her religion as Muslim,⁷ a baptism certificate⁸; and various photographs depicting the claimant in church.⁹

Credibility

[9]       The claimant was generally consistent in her allegations and testimony. It is beyond controversy that she has in fact been baptised in 2018 in Canada.

[10]     The main issue was her multiple returns from Europe, USA and even Canada, even after she started attending churches and considered herself Christian. She explained that she was not aware that her situation qualified for asylum and she wanted to resume her teaching at the university. She also wanted to confront her parents with her new faith after the XXXX 2016 to Canada because that was personally important to her.

[11]     I find her explanations reasonable in the circumstances because the claimant is a single, highly educated woman in Egypt that lives with her parents. Keeping cultural norms in mind and the Gender Guidelines, it is not unreasonable to expect that she may want to share this important aspect of her identity with her parents especially since it is clearly inferable that they supported her educational, professional and personal life choices up to that point. I also find that her desire to return and teach is intrinsically tied to her identity as an educated person. Lastly, while the claimant is fairly sophisticated, it is understandable that she was not sure whether her case would qualify for asylum until recently because her allegations of past persecution are on their face quite modest.

[12]     Being on the receiving end of threats, when there is no evidence of a serious possibility of those threats materializing into actual violence does not amount to persecution. Neither is having garbage thrown at occasionally while travelling in the neighbourhood amount to persecution when one balances the fact that the claimant was otherwise gainfully employed at the least in the immediate past.

[13]     Accordingly, I decline to draw an adverse inference as to the credibility of the claimant from her returns to Egypt and failure to claim protection in the past.

[14]     The claimant filed post-hearing documentation that appears to show that she was thinking in 2016 to immigrate to Canada as a skilled worker. I accept counsel’s submissions that she did not meet the benchmark completely due to lack of testing for English. However, this evidence also indicates that in other respects she met the benchmarks and her application may very well have been approved in the end. However, I find that I accept the claimant’s testimony that she declined to follow up with this application because it would have taken too long and she started getting worried for her safety, mainly due to her father’s advice that people her in position could get into trouble in Egypt. I decline to draw an adverse inference as to the claimant’s general credibility from her failure to follow up with the skilled worker application. I find that in fact this application shows that the claimant was in fact trying to leave Egypt permanently which supports her overall claim to be in a state of general suffering due to religious discrimination by society.

[15]     While her past conduct does raise some concerns, I find that I ultimately give the claimant the benefit of the doubt. The claimant was credible when it came to speaking about her religious knowledge and practices. There is an insufficient basis to question her honesty. I find that she has established the sincerity of her religious conversion to Christianity with sufficient credible evidence.

Serious risk of religious persecution on a forward looking basis

[16]     While the claimant may appear to be able to maintain gainful employment in Egypt as a notorious Christian convert in the past, the country documentation evidence indicates that converts ultimate face an array of serious persecution including that “a convert to Christianity from Islam will have extreme difficulty dealing with officials and neighbours who have any idea of his or her decision.”¹⁰ Furthermore, “Muslim converts to Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam tantamount to treason.”¹¹

[17]     The documentation adds the following statements from one of its sources consulted:

Similarly, in correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a board member of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada stated that authorities will attempt to dissuade someone from converting from Islam to Christianity and may arbitrarily imprison the person alongside “dangerous criminals” if they insist on converting.¹²

[18]     The government frequently failed to prevent, investigate, or prosecute crimes targeting members of religious minority groups, which fostered a climate of impunity.

[19]     Country documentation confirms that Christians continue to be targeted by Islamic militants, attacks against Copts take place throughout Egypt, and state authorities are slow to act.¹³

[20]     In noting that various violent incidents against Christians took place in locations throughout the country, the panel also finds that there is not an area of the country where the claimant would be able to reside and safely participate in the community, and as such there is no internal flight alternative available to the claimant anywhere in Egypt.

[21]     Counsel’s disclosure also establishes that converts are prevented from officially changing their designated religion assigned to her at birth, even if they seek a court order.¹⁴ This effectively prevents converts from integrating into the Christian community, which means they are still subject to Sharia law, they are not allowed to marry Christians and any foreign marriage of such a nature is not recognized and any children born from such a union would be assign a “Muslim” identity designation by default which cannot be changed.

[22]     I find that all of these forms of discrimination, including the illegality of conversion per se in Egypt and risks of vigilante attacks, cumulatively amount to persecution on a forward looking basis in the claimant’s case. They also evidence a lack of state protection because this discrimination emanates from the state.

No state protection

[23]     I find that the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection because the harm ultimately emanates from the state or societal elements that are tacitly supported by the state at least in so far as they seek to stop conversions and punish intransigent Christians converters who refuse to return to Islam.

No IFA

[24]     I find that there is no viable IFA in Egypt for the claimant because there is no evidence that converts from Islam to Christianity are safe anywhere in the country. 

CONCLUSION

[25]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee based on the ground of religion.

[26]     She has a well-founded fear of persecution.

[27]     Accordingly, I accept her claim.

(signed)           YONATAN ROZENSZAJN

August 1, 2019

1 Exhibit 11.

2 Exhibit 12.

3 Exhibit 10 and 13.

4 Exhibit 2.

5 Exhibits 8 and 9.

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

7 Exhibit 7

8 Ibid.

9 Exhibit 6.

10 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, 29 March 2019 version, item 12.7: Whether people who have converted from Islam to Christianity, particularly those converts who have been arrested, are able to obtain passports and leave the country (April 2010-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 November 2013. EGY104664.E.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

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

14 Exhibit 5.

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

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

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[3]       Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA³ provides that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, unless the Minister has notified the RPD of the Minister’s intention to intervene within the time limit set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules.⁴ Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁵ directs each Division to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

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

Identity—religious

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

Credibility

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

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

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

State protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

(signed)           M. MOC

February 26, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

6 Exhibit 6.

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

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

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

10 Exhibit 7, personal documentation package #1.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Exhibit 8, personal documentation package #2.

14 Exhibit 2.

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

16 Exhibit 11.

17 Exhibit 7, page 11.

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

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

20 Ibid.

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

22 Ibid.

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