Category: Egypt

2019 RLLR 179

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

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

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

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

[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 Readiness⁶for the expedited process on January 7, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that it meets the criteria for expedited determination.

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

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

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

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

Credibility

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

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

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

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

State protection

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

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

[19] The panel notes the following:

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

According to 76 Crimes, the largest reported number of arrests of LGBT people has been in Egypt, where a crackdown has been under way since 2013 as part of a larger government effort to arrest and harass political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists. In late-2016, LGBT community leaders estimate that as many as 500 LGBT people have been sent to prison.¹⁷

[20] Country documentation further states that

[a]fter a coup resulted in a new government in late 2013, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) began documenting increased arrests and harassment of people perceived to be gay or transgender by the public morals police, with at least 77 arrests taking place between October 2013 and May 2014. Arrests continue at similar rates— many of them stemming from police efforts to entrap gay men by using social media.¹⁸ [citations omitted]

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

(signed) M. MOC

January 30, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

6 Exhibit 5.

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

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

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

10 Exhibit 6, personal documentation #1.

11 Exhibits 2 and 3.

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

13 Ibid., see GCMS notes.

14 Exhibits 6 and 7.

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

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

17 Ibid.

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

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 178

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[2] Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA² provides that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, unless the Minister has notified the RPD of the Minister’s intention to intervene within the time limit set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules.³ Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁴ directs each Division to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.

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

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

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

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

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

Credibility

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

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

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

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

State protection

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

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

[18] The panel notes the following:

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

[19] Country documentation further states that

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

(signed) M. MOC

January 28, 2019

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

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

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

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

5 Exhibit 7.

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

7 Exhibit 2.

8 Exhibit 5.

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

10 Ibid., see copies of documents seized.

11 Exhibit 4.

12 Exhibit 2.

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

14 Ibid., see GCMS notes.

15 Exhibit 4.

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

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

18 Ibid.

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

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 177

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

EXPEDITED DETERMINATION

[2] Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA² provides that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, unless the Minister has notified the RPD of the Minister’s intention to intervene within the time limit set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules.³Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA⁴ directs each Division to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity—personal and national

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

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

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

Credibility

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

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

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

State protection

[18] The panel notes the following:

[19] Country documentation further states that

CONCLUSION

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

(signed) M. MOC

January 28, 2019

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

2 Ibid., section 170(f).

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

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

5 Exhibit 6.

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

7 Exhibit 2.

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

9 Exhibit 4, personal documents.

10 Exhibit 2.

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

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

13 Exhibit 4.

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

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

16 Ibid.

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

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 176

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

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

ALLEGATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

ANALYSIS

Identity

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

Credibility and Subjective Fear

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

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

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

State Protection

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

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

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

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

[22] The Home Office document further relates that:

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

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

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

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

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

Internal flight alternative

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

(signed) KENNETH D. MACLEAN

August 20, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form.

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

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

5 Exhibit 2, BOC.

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

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

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

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

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., item 2.2.

12 Ibid., item 5.6.

13 Ibid., item 5.1.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 175

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

ARTICLE 1E

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

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

Assessment of the Issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16] Ms. Riboldi continues:

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

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

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

THE CLAIMS

Allegations

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

Determination

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

Analysis

Identity

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

Nexus

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

Credibility

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

Objective basis of future risk

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

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

Nature of Harm

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

State protection

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

Internal flight alternative

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

CONCLUSION

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

(signed) KEITH BRENNENSTUHL

June 20, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 174

Citation: 2019 RLLR 174
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: July 23, 2019
Panel: C. Ruthven
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Howard P. Eisenberg
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-17225
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-17236, TB7-17256, TB7-17260, TB7-17261
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000536-000549

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] These reasons and decision are in regards to the claims for protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (principal claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (adult female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (elder minor male claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (younger minor male claimant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX (minor female claimant).

[2] Each is claiming protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.¹ The panel heard the claims jointly, pursuant to Refugee Protection Division Rule 55.²

[3] The principal claimant was the designated representative for all three minor claimants.

ALLEGATIONS

[4] The claims of the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants are each against Egypt. The claim of the minor female claimant is against the United States of America.

[5] The principal claimant’s full allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim Form and related narrative,³ including its amendments,⁴ and addendum.⁵ The adult female claimant and the three minor claimants each rely on the narrative of the principal claimant.

[6] The principal claimant joined the Nour Alhag (Light of Right) Association during his studies at XXXX XXXX XXXX in Cairo. After graduating university in 1991, he continued to oppose the corruption and nepotism that existed under the former regime of Hosni Mubarak. The principal claimant was harassed by the security and intelligence services in Egypt, until he relocated to Saudi Arabia in 1993.

[7] The adult female claimant also attended XXXX XXXX XXXX, where she was a women’s rights activist, especially concerning ending violence against women, ending early marriage, and ending Female Genital Mutilation practices. The adult female claimant was the victim of Female Genital Mutilation, and she fears that physical or psychological trauma might be inflicted on her daughter (the minor female claimant) in places with high Female Genital Mutilation prevalence rates, such as Egypt (including Aswan).

[8] In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the principal claimant participated in the Kifaya (Enough) movement between 2004 and 2010. Upon a return to Egypt in 2007, he was subjected to harsh interrogation from security intelligence, based on his participation with Kifaya in Riyadh.

[9] The adult claimants and the two minor male claimants returned to Egypt in XXXX 2011, where they participated in the Tahrir Square protests against Hosni Mubarak. The claimants returned Saudi Arabia the following month.

[10] The principal claimant joined the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh, after the political party was founded in June 2011. During the election campaign, the claimant promoted the Freedom and Justice Party within the Egypt diaspora community. When President Mohamed Morsi was removed from office by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the adult claimants and the two minor male claimants returned to Egypt in XXXX 2013, to protest the removal of the democratically-elected president, in Cairo’s Rabaa Square.

[11] The principal claimant was arrested and detained between July 7, 2013 and July 9, 2013. During his two-day detention, he was physically mistreated and accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (based on his presence in Rabaa Square). The claimants departed Egypt for Saudi Arabia on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2013.

[12] Between XXXX XXXX, 2016 and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017, the principal claimant returned to Egypt on three occasions, in order to fight the appropriation of fifteen acres of his land, by the government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The principal claimant eventually lost his appropriation appeal. The principal claimant was terminated from his Saudi Arabia employment in March 2017, a few weeks before he lost his land appropriation appeal in Egypt.

[13] The adult claimants made arrangements to visit their elderly parents in Egypt, between XXXX XXXX, 2017 and XXXX XXXX, 2017. After the seven-day visit, the claimants travelled to Canada, and made a claim for protection in September 2017.

[14] Based on the nature of the claim made by the minor female claimant (Female Genital Mutilation), the panel carefully considered the contents of Chairperson ‘s Guideline 4 – Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution,⁶ both during the hearing and while rendering the decision.

DETERMINATION

[15] The panel finds that the principal claimant and the adult female claimant are both Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on their anti-government political opinion.

[16] The panel finds that the elder minor male claimant and the younger minor male are each Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on their membership in a particular social group, namely family members of the adult claimants (who face a serious possibility of persecution in Egypt).

[17] Despite the above, the panel finds that minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

ANALYSIS FOR THE MINOR FEMALE CLAIMANT

Identity

[18] The panel finds that the minor female claimant has established her identity as a national of the United States of America, based on a balance of probabilities. The minor female claimant presented a valid passport from the United States of America.⁷ The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document.

[19] The Basis of Claim Form narrative of the principal claimant referenced the high prevalence rate of Female Genital Mutilation practices in Egypt.⁸

[20] Despite this, the panel notes that there was no narrative mention of any alleged risks of harm to the minor female claimant in the United States of America (including Female Genital Mutilation).

[21] At the hearing, the principal claimant testified that his daughter (the minor female claimant) does not face a risk of harm in the United States of America. Similarly, the adult female claimant testified that her daughter (the minor female claimant) does not face a risk of harm in the United States of America.

[22] The panel carefully considered the contents of the Basis of Claim Form for the minor female claimant,⁹ as well as the Basis of Claim Form or narrative of each of her family members,¹⁰ the written submissions of the five claimants, and the testimony of the two adult claimants. The panel finds that no claim against the United States of America was forwarded on behalf of the minor female claimant.

[23] As such, the panel finds that the minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as the minor female claimant does not face a serious possibility of persecution in the United States of America, and because her removal to that country would not subject her personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to her life, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture.

[24] The claim of the minor female claimant therefore fails.

ANALYSIS FOR THE THREE MALE CLAIMANTS AND THE ADULT FEMALE CLAIMANT

Identity

[25] The panel finds that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants have each established their identity as nationals of Egypt, based on a balance of probabilities. They each presented their valid Arab Republic of Egypt passports.¹¹ The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these four documents.

Credibility

[26] The panel finds that the principal claimant and the adult female claimant each testified in a straightforward and consistent manner, without the use of embellishments or contradictions.

[27] The panel finds that the principal claimant was able to coherently describe in his testimony his opinions about the former regime of Hosni Mubarak,¹² and how those opinion began to form when he entered university in 1987. He further testified about his affiliation with the Nour Alhag in university, including how he wrote articles that were published in The Wall journal. The panel also finds that the principal claimant was able to clearly articulate his ex-patriot involvement during his residency in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, after he departed Egypt in 1993.

[28] In contrast, the adult female claimant testified that she was not politically involved in Egypt.

Corroborating Documents

[29] To corroborate his opposition to the al-Sisi regime in Egypt, the principal claimant presented an August 20, 2017 letter of support signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,¹³ an August 5, 2017 letter of support¹⁴and a September 15, 2017 letter of support¹⁵(each signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX), a March 26, 2019 letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,¹⁶ an undated letter signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,¹⁷ as well as three protest photographs and a social media post.¹⁸

Profiles of the Adult Female Claimant and the Minor Male Claimants

[30] The adult female claimant testified that she and her two sons would be arrested in Egypt, simply because her husband is a member of the Freedom and Justice Party. She further testified that her husband’s opposition to the current president of Egypt would lead to physical mistreatment (in custody) for the minor male claimants.

[31] The principal claimant testified that his family all participated in demonstrations during their time in Canada. The protest rallies took place on February 22, 2019 and March 16, 2019.¹⁹

[32] Amnesty International reports that there is a pattern of abuse by state agents in Egypt that became particularly evident since March 2015. The abuse includes arbitrary arrests, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances. Those subjected to enforced disappearances by the National Security Agency were perceived supporters of Mohamed Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood. The victims were mostly males, ranging in age from fourteen-year-old boys to adult men in their fifties, and included students, academics and other activists, peaceful critics and protesters, and family members of government critics.²⁰

[33] Based on the above considerations, that panel finds that the country condition evidence points to the authorities in Egypt having some interest in the adult female claimant and the two minor male claimants, based on their political opinion against the president of Egypt.

Subjective Fear Considerations

No Claim for Asylum in the United States of America

[34] Some of the presented written evidence pointed to actions of the claimants, particularly the adult claimants, which did not seem to match the expected actions of a person who alleges fear of a return to their country of citizenship. All of the panel’s concerns were put to at least one of the adult claimants at the hearing.

[35] The panel notes that the adult claimants and the minor male claimants did not make a claim for asylum in the United States of America, despite having opportunities to do so after the arrest of the principal claimant in July 2013.

[36] According to an entry stamp in his presented Egypt passport, the principal claimant was granted entry into the United States of America on XXXX XXXX, 2016.²¹ The principal claimant testified that his visits to the United States of America were both for business and pleasure, and that his wife had accompanied him on the trips for business purposes. The adult female claimant confirmed in her own testimony that she never resided in a different country from the principal claimant since they were married.

[37] When the lack of a claim for asylum in the United States of America was put to the adult female claimant at the hearing, she testified that she and her husband regarded their lifestyle in Saudi Arabia to be affluent, that the principal claimant occupied a prestigious post for his employment, and that Saudi Arabia was relatively safe for them.

[38] The claimants presented the Saudi Arabia employment termination letter for the principal claimant. It confirmed that he was informed of the termination on February 9, 2017,²² subsequent to the last known entry of the claimants into the United States of America. The panel accepts the explanations provided within the testimony of the adult female claimant regarding their lack of claims for protection in the United States of America. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference.

Decision to Return to Egypt in XXXX 2017

[39] The panel put to the principal claimant that all members of his family had visas to enter the United States of America, or in the case of the minor female claimant citizenship in the United States of America, when they departed Saudi Arabia for Egypt on XXXX XXXX, 2017. The panel would have expected persons fearful of a return to Egypt to have taken the opportunity to travel to the United States of America, as an alternative to returning to a risk of harm in Egypt.

[40] The principal claimant testified that he simply wanted an opportunity to visit his family on one more occasion, as he feared that he would never see them again.

[41] The claimants presented a September 15, 2017 letter signed by a member of the expatriate directorate of the Freedom and Justice Party in Cairo.²³ XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed that the principal claimant had been in contact with him in the two months leading up to his final trip to Egypt, and that XXXX XXXX XXXX assisted the claimants to return temporarily to Egypt for the purpose of a farewell to his ailing parents.

[42] The panel accepts the principal claimant’s explanation in his testimony about the reasons for his visit to Egypt between XXXX XXXX, 2017 and XXXX XXXX, 2017. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference.

Objective Basis of the Claims

[43] The overall objective evidence supports the claims for Convention refugee protection put forth by the principal claimant and the adult female claimant, based on their anti-government political opinion.

Political Opposition in Egypt

[44] The passing of the Protest Law in November 2013 has severely restricted the ability of citizens to protest peacefully against the state. The Protest Law was introduced amid a tense political environment characterised by recurrent protests.²⁴ Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment.²⁵

[45] There were reports of physical assaults on members of political opposition movements.²⁶ Arrests, harsh prison terms, death sentences, and extrajudicial violence targeting the political opposition have been common in recent years.²⁷

[46] Former president Mohamed Morsi was a leading Muslim Brotherhood member before his election in June 2012.²⁸ The Freedom and Justice Party is as such considered the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.²⁹ In August 2014, the administrative court system in Egypt revoked the license of the Freedom and Justice Party, and mandated its dissolution.³⁰

[47] The Freedom and Justice Party remains banned in Egypt. Authorities have not banned other Islamist parties.³¹

Interest of the Authorities in the Two Adult Claimants

[48] The panel carefully considered the testimony and the written evidence related to the adult claimant’s promotion of the Freedom and Justice Party in Saudi Arabia, as well as his involvement in the Rabaa Square protests. The claimant presented Basis of Claim Form narrative statements which indicated that he promoted the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh after it was founded in June 2011, until the June 2012 elections.³²

[49] The two presented letters of support signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX³³ indicate that the principal claimant was an active member of the Freedom and Justice Party in Riyadh, and that his duties included creating a wide front with the goal of ending the regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, along with marketing slogans of the Freedom and Justice Party.

[50] In regards to participation in Egypt, the claimant presented narrative statements which indicated that he and his family returned to Egypt in July 2013 to participate in the Rabaa Square protests. Immediately after his July 9, 2013 release from detention, the principal claimant evacuated his family from Rabaa Square, as instructed by his release conditions.³⁴

[51] The panel elicited testimony from the principal claimant related to his July 7, 2013 arrest, and subsequent two-day detention, in Cairo. The principal claimant testified that he was subjected to physical assaults in custody, and that he was asked if he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The principal claimant testified that the authorities were trying to make the connection based on is political history file,³⁵ as well as his attendance at the Rabaa Square protests. The claimant was released after two days, under the sole condition that he remove himself (and his family) from the Rabaa Square protests.

[52] The panel notes that peaceful demonstrators and bystanders may be subject to questioning, detention, arrest, and conviction for participating in or being in proximity to unauthorized demonstrations in Egypt.³⁶

[53] The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the actions of the principal claimant and the adult female claimant, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Canada have drawn the attention of the authorities in Egypt. This is in consideration of the evidence of their public support for the opposition to government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

[54] As such, the panel finds that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants have each established a well-founded fear of returning to Egypt.

State Protection for the Adult Claimants and the Minor Male Claimants

[55] The two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants each fear the authorities of Egypt.

Risk of Harm from the Authorities

[56] President al-Sisi’s government maintained its zero-tolerance policy towards dissent, introducing repressive legislation, notably a Non-Governmental Organization law that may end independent associations, reinstating a state of emergency and continuing near-absolute impunity for abuses by security forces under the pretext of fighting terrorism.³⁷

[57] Protesters have been subjected to various kinds of state-sponsored violence in Egypt, including long provisional detention.³⁸ The Interior Ministry’s regular police and its National Security Agency have used widespread arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture against perceived dissidents.³⁹

[58] The panel finds it unreasonable to expect either adult claimant or either minor male claimant to seek redress or protection from the police or any other authorities in Egypt. The panel finds that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming for the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, or the two minor male claimants, in their respective particular set of circumstances.

[59] For clarification, the panel finds that the authorities would on a balance of probabilities, be the primary agents of persecution for the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants. The panel finds that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing, and that it rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection for the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants in Egypt.

Internal Flight Alternatives for the Adult Claimants and the Minor Male Claimants

[60] The state, and its National Security Agency, have national reach.

[61] As a result of the above-referenced country condition documentation from the National Documentation Package, the panel finds that a viable internal flight alternative does not exist for the two adult claimants or the two minor male claimants in any place in Egypt, as the state and its National Security Agency are their agents of persecution.

[62] The panel finds that the two adult claimants and the two minor male claimants each have a well-founded fear of persecution throughout Egypt, and that there is no viable internal flight alternative for any of them.

CONCLUSION

[63] The panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants each face persecution in Egypt. The panel concludes that they are each Convention refugees, based on their anti-government political opinion, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[64] The panel therefore accepts the claims of the principal claimant, the adult female claimant, and the two minor male claimants.

[65] Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the minor female claimant is not a Convention refugee, nor is she a person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as the minor female claimant does not face a serious possibility of persecution, and because her removal to her country of citizenship would not subject her personally, on a balance of probabilities, to a risk to her life, to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, or to a danger of torture.

[66] The claim for protection made by the minor female claimant therefore fails.

(signed) C. RUTHVEN

July 23, 2019

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

2 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Exhibit 13, Exhibit 19, and Exhibit 20.

5 Exhibit 19.

6 Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Guidelines issued by the Chairperson pursuant to subsection 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 13, 1996.

7 Exhibit 1.

8 Exhibit 2.

9 Exhibit 3.

10 Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6, Exhibit 13, Exhibit 19, and Exhibit 20.

11 Exhibit 1.

12 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.3, item 1.6, item 1.8, item 2.4, item 2.5, item 2.6, item 3.9, item 4.2, item 4.3, item 4.5, item 4.7, item 4.8, item 5.6, item 5.7, item 7.4, item 7.6, item 9.3, item 9.6, item 9.7, item 10.1, item 11.2, and item 12.2.

13 Exhibit 10.

14 Exhibit 10.

15 Exhibit 12.

16 Exhibit 17.

17 Exhibit 17.

18 Exhibit 16.

19 Exhibit 19.

20 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.5.

21 Exhibit l.

22 Exhibit 10.

23 Exhibit 12.

24 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.8.

25 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5 and item 2.4.

26 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.1.

27 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.4.

28 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.8

29 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5, item 1.6, item 1.8, item 2.1, item 2.4, item 2.5, item 4.5, item 4.6, item 4.7, item 4.9, item 5.6, item 9.3, item 9.7, and item 10.1.

30 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.3 and item 4.8.

31 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.5 and item 2.1.

32 Exhibit 2.

33 Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 12.

34 Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 19.

35 Exhibit 19.

36 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 7.1.

37 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 2.3.

38 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 4.8.

39 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 10.1.

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 173

Citation: 2019 RLLR 173
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 21, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Lily Luwam Tekle
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-17112
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-17135, TB7-17148, TB7-17149, TB7-17157
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000525-000530

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: We are back on the record now and the same parties are present. Okay, I am going to give a decision now and in the interpreter will be doing this simultaneously, thank you.

[2] This is the decision in the claims with respect to the following XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the principal file is TB7-17112.

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

[4] First of all I would like to say that the designated representative in this case for the three minor children has been the principal male claimant Mr. XXXX and I have also taken into consideration in this case the Chairperson’ s Guideline 4 before the IRB and that is with respect to the issue of gender-related claims.

[5] Having said that the nexus in this case has been that of a membership in a particular social group under the issue of gender with respect to the two female claimants and for the entire family with the exception of the youngest child, well it is actually for the whole family, but then my decision for the youngest child will be different than it is for the rest of the family.

[6] But the nexus for the whole family is with the issue of religion or being non-conformist to the extremist views of Islamic views of some in the country that are considered extremists, but nonetheless carry some weight, sometimes even with the government.

[7] The allegations in this case have been and are found in the Basis of Claim Forms of the claimants, but they rely primarily on that of the principal claimant Mr. XXXX and these are that even though the family was living well and he was successful in his employment as a XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX, everything was going well and the family had not had problems until 2017 when several threats were left in writing over a period of a few months, were left on the car of the female adult claimant.

[8] And basically these threats made it very clear that her non-conformity to that she was only wearing a hijab, but was not wearing the Niqab had not gone unnoticed and neither had that of her daughter, her eldest child, XXXX, because XXXX was not wearing the Hijab.

[9] She was also hanging around or had friends who were Christians and some of them were male friends and this was not being seen well by persons who carried a more extreme view of Islam and they were warned through letters that were left on the car as well as or in the mailbox as well as through e mails that were later sent to the principal claimant.

[10] And, the e-mails as well as the letters increased in their violent aspect and towards the end they were very insulting to the female claimants as well as threatening to behead the adult principal claimant and to basically kill the entire family for not dressing in proper Islamic attire as well as for not going to the mosque and for not following the mores of Islam.

[11] So, for all this and these allegations which are found in the Basis of Claim Forms led the claimants to fear that this group was going to actually carry out their threats.

[12] They tried to leave and go to other cities to live or to another city, to the city of Suez, but they were unable to live there without encountering that these people knew they had gone there as well as they knew that they had reported to the police what was being said to them and that increased their fear that they were somehow being watched and that the threats could be carried out.

[13] They also became fearful that the police were not interested in helping them because whenever they had made a report or they did on two occasions the police did nothing about it and there was no followup despite being told they would follow up and with all that the claimants decided to leave the country immediately and given that the principal claimant had access to airline tickets quickly because of his position with XXXX.

[14] They made their plans to leave the country given that they also had Canadian visitors visa or temporary resident visas. They left the country in XXXX 2017 and came to Canada and subsequently made claims for protection in Canada.

[15] Yes, on XXXX XXXX, 2017, they arrived at Pearson and went to Hamilton where they had a friend living in Canada.

[16] Okay, so, the issue of identity, I have considered that the certified true copies of your passports which are found in Exhibit 1 have indicated to me as well as the birth certificates that I have provided on file. On a balance of probabilities, I can conclude that the claimants are citizens of Egypt and the youngest claimant XXXX is the citizen of United States of America as his birth was in United States of America.

[17] Therefore, I also wanted to say that I find that all the claimants with the exception of the youngest child XXXX XXXX XXXX, you are not included in this I am afraid, but the rest are Convention refugees for the following reasons.

[18] As I have already mentioned the issue of your identity has been established. Looking at the issue of your credibility, I found that both you Mr. XXXX as well as Ms. XXXX that you were both credible witnesses in what you have alleged in your allegations, I have therefore accepted as credible.

[19] With respect your credibility, I found that you were spontaneous in your replies and that you did not embellish when there was opportunity to embellish and your evidence was not inconsistent with the documentary material as well as with the rest of your documents. Therefore, I have accepted both of your testimony in this case.

[20] According to your evidence, you seem to understand that you were not being Islamic enough by not wearing the Hijab in the case of XXXX as well as by having the friends that she had and going out with these friends.

[21] And, with respect to you Ms. XXXX by not wearing the Niqab, you were considered not Islamic enough and therefore there would be consequences according to this extremist group that was sending you these threats and the consequences would be for your family as well as for your spouse by not insisting or not making the females of the family conform and wear the attire necessary.

[22] According to the documentary material that is found in my package as well as the material found in counsel’s packages of Exhibit-6 and 7 and then Exhibit-8 as well, it would appear that in Egypt there are persons, that although they are considered to be extremists, they express this through threats by expecting the entire population to conform and dress in a certain way and to go to prayer at a certain time.

[23] Anybody who is perceived to be a non-believer in Egypt or someone who is perceived to not have faith is considered to have breached the social or religious mores and in some cases not perhaps in your case where you have not been accused of apostasy, but in other cases where persons have been accused of apostasy, that actually reaches the level of being considered a crime.

[24] The documentary material in my package Sections 1, 2 and 12 speak about the serious possibility of violence or harassment and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community by extremists groups to persons who they perceive to be non-Islamic or apostate or anyone who insults the religion.

[25] In cases with respect to women, when the first revolution occurred in 2011 and then since the second one that took place, sexual assault increased in Egypt and though it was underreported it still was occurring at a terrible rate.

[26] In counsel’s package, it speaks about there was at one point in the Arab world, being a woman in Egypt was considered to be the worst place to be a woman and so that was in 2013, but later reports have indicated that the situation has not improved tremendously at all for women.

[27] The government brought in an anti-harassment law mostly to help women. However, this law was found to be quite onerous because a woman if she was able to get the police to take a report and take her seriously, she had to provide two witnesses to the harassment. So, needless to say, it went underreported as well and that was just in the case of harassment. We are not talking about the case where people are making threats.

[28] And also in the documentary material in general referred to, speaks about the situation with respect to Human Rights in Egypt as having deteriorated very much so.

[29] Now, with respect to the issue of State protection, that is where looking at the documents is so important and that is where the documentary material does also speak about when women complaint to the police, it does not get taken seriously and that is possibly what you experienced Ms. XXXX as well as XXXX when you went to talk to them about the threats that were being made to you.

[30] For whatever reason they don’t take it seriously enough and despite bringing in a law, this antiharassment law that might indicate the police is attempting to deal with the situation, nevertheless I have to look at, is the protection in the country adequate?

[31] And, under the circumstances and looking at the documentary material at the present time, I don’t find that it is under your circumstances where the documents speak about all the sexual assaults that are occurring to women and to anyone who does not dress in serious extremist Muslim garb.

[32] And, generally many in the population believe that it is also the woman’s fault if she is not dressed in strict Niqab or hijab and then is assaulted or sexually harassed, assaulted of course being worse.

[33] So, given that and I believe that you Mr. XXXX when you said that you don’t want anybody pressuring you or your family with respect to your religion or making you follow in a certain way as well as, as you ma’am, Ms. XXXX when you said about how if you give in to one request that they make then they will just continue and until you are following everything that this group is telling you and while the documentary material speaks about the government trying to deal with extremism in terms of the violence that these extremists groups are causing in the country, it doesn’t seem to be working at the level of persons such as yourself that are experiencing these threats.

[34] Therefore, given all of this that could be imputed to you for being religious nonconformist as well as the being of the female gender so membership in particular social group and I believe that you could not get the adequate State protection from the government as you have tried by going to the police on two occasions and now that it is possible that they are wondering if the family of Mr. XXXX if you have made a refugee claim abroad as you have; given that now may even put you in a position if they were to learn that you have made a claim that is, that you might be viewed in a different light by the government as you believe that you would be viewed as a traitor despite the fact that you had a position that was considered to be one given to people who are viewed well from their prospective of national security.

[35] So, for all these reasons I find that the four of you …… oh, one more thing I have to mention is with respect to internal flight alternative in Alexandria. I’ve decided that based on the evidence I believe that what you face which is a serious possibility of persecution. I believe you face it throughout the country and that even if you were to move to Alexandria, I don’t believe you could do so and live safely without being in hiding and therefore that is not an option.

[36] So, for these reasons then in the family XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX I find that you are Convention refugees.

[37] However, with respect to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, there has been no evidence submitted regarding United States of America and that is that there is no evidence refuting the presumption of State protection for the minor child in the country of his citizenship.

[38] I therefore find that you, XXXX, I have to reject your claim and I find that you are not a Convention refugee.

[39] Okay? So, everybody else is…. Thank you. And thanks Madam Interpreter. This hearing is now concluded. Good day to everyone.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 172

Citation: 2019 RLLR 172
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 12, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A. Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-16955
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-16967, TB7-16968, TB7-16969
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000519-000524

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims with respect to, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is the principal claimant and her three children, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and the principal file number is TB7-16955.

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

[3] I find that all the claimants are nationals of Egypt as there are certified true copies of their passports found in Exhibit 1, as well as, later in the temporary resident visa file, Exhibit 7 and this, as well as, there are other personal documents, copies which are on file and all these indicate to me, on a balance of probabilities, that I can conclude that the claimants are all citizens of Egypt.

[4] I find also that the claimants are all Convention refugees and my reasons are as follows:

[5] First of all, I would like to say that the designated representative in this case, for the minor child, XXXX, is the principal claimant, his mother and she has understood what her responsibilities were as his designated representative.

[6] In deciding this claim, I have also taken into consideration and also in the hearing of this claim, Guideline 4 which is the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-related Persecution. That’s the name of the guideline.

[7] Now, having said that, the nexus in this case is membership in a particular social group as gender for you, Miss XXXX and also under the ground of religion for being imputed to be an apostate or an infidel or in other words, to be considered un-Islamic or non-conforming to the religion and as for the children, that would be as family, also membership in a particular social group as family of an apostate or mortad(ph) mother as some may say it.

[8] Now, also with respect to the allegations, these I will summarize very quickly. They are found in the Basis of Claim Form and I won’t go through all of them, just to say that, you were all living in Egypt until you came to Canada on the XXXX XXXX XXXX of 2017, at which time you made a claim for refugee protection at an in-land office.

[9] The troubles for you started around 2015 when at a social function, the principal claimant met extremists from the Muslim Brotherhood Party. These were women who would upon socially meeting other women, if they found that they were not Islamic enough or were not wearing the hijab, they would then start to see them socially and then commence with indoctrinating them or pushing them become more Islamic.

[10] If they did not become more Islamic and conform to the Sharia law as these women, these two women, XXXX(sp) and XXXX(sp), were having the principal claimant do, then they would proceed to make threats and this is what happened in this case.

[11] So, it started with criticizing your laughing, your way of talking and the clothes you wore or the lack of wearing the hijab and then later, it became that you should be wearing not just the hijab but the niqab and then there were attacks on your eldest son – sorry – first on your second son, then on the eldest son. Those attacks came later but all of these attacks resulted in serious physical injuries, as well as, the psychological injuries that accompanied those attacks.

[12] There were also attacks to your car whereby you were purposefully hit by another car. Your car was hit by another car and that became a hit and run and then these threats continued.

[13] There were a number of paper threats, letters, notes that were left for you, including, on one occasion, bleach was left with the threat of what that meant and how that would be used to disfigure you.

[14] There were very insulting threats and also these were said to your sons, as well as, phone threats and these phone threats have continued too in Egypt and your husband has tried to stop them by saying that he is separated from you and is not in contact with the family, doesn’t know where they are. Okay?

[15] So, with respect to your credibility, I have found that you have testified in a very credible manner and you’ve provided your testimony in a spontaneous way without any embellishments or contradictions and there were no discrepancies between your evidence and the documents and that also goes for the, any testimony given by your sons when I’ve asked them questions.

[16] There’s also much of what you said is consistent with some of the documentary material with respect to how these extremists try to indoctrinate or make people be more Islamic and in Counsel’s package of Exhibit 10, there is much information from the Guardian which is considered, in my opinion, to be a reliable publication and it speaks there about how the current government of El-sisi is having to deal with these extremists and how he’s walking a tightrope because he was not the party that represented the, that was Dr. Morsi. He was not of the one that represented the Islamic side or the Muslim Brotherhood. But I’ll get to that shortly.

[17] So, with respect to your credibility, I have concluded that you are credible witnesses and, therefore, I accept what you’ve alleged in your Basis of Claim Form as credible and I just wanted to speak about, with respect to what is considered under the ground of religion that I think you fall into in that you have a non-conforming religious, non-conforming to the religion view of or way of life. You do not – when you were in Egypt, would not wear the hijab, let alone the niqab.

[18] You also said that you were brought up in a quite a liberal Islamic fashion. Both your parents were educated. Your mother, I believe, taught English literature. You went to a Catholic school where a lot of Christians were in your school. A lot of them were Muslims too because you said you were upper class and you had, that was considered to be a good education to go to these Christians schools. So, you went there.

[19] You also would go by a Christian church as your mother did and light a candle and you do that here in Canada. But you have views of having Christian friends and celebrating Christmas and things that are not considered to be Islamic.

[20] Whether they knew that or these women became aware of that is not clear but that doesn’t negate the fact that these women did not find you Islamic enough with what they did know and from, because of that, they decided they were going to make you more and when that wasn’t working, they were then using threats and following you and had you transferred to another job and then had somebody there follow you and push you down the stairs. So, you yourself, also encountered physical threats.

[21] According to the documentary material, the documentary material speaks about how, just how religious a country Egypt is and how an expression of not following what some would perceive to be very religious, is an expression of one’s religion or non-belief also.

[22] It also indicates that in Egypt, it is often the case where, if women aren’t wearing the hijab they are, there’s a lot of sexual harassment that goes on. Where a report, I think it was Amnesty International – no – there’s a report done whereby 99% of the women, at least 99% had stated they had been sexually harassed.

[23] So, somebody’s always saying something, it would appear but also going further, if one is perceived to not be Islamic enough, to be possibly atheist if a person is not Islamic enough, then because there are expectations of people going to prayer and non-believers are not treated very well in Egypt.

[24] If they are regarded as apostates, given that apostacy is considered a crime in Egypt, then a person that doesn’t follow the social or religious morays could be considered to be doing something very wrong, a crime, it could be.

[25] But you’re not at that point where you’re being accused of being an atheist. You’re not there. But what is serious, in my opinion, is that you are not considered to be Islamic enough and even though the Muslim Brotherhood members have been sought after by the current government and this current government has been trying to find supporters or sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood and rule, like, deal with them, nevertheless, this did continue to occur to you while El-sisi was in power, before you left the country and this has continued, these same people because they have managed, these women, to continue to try to do what they were doing to you.

[26] Therefore, I think that you did go to the police and try to get them to write a report and they did not want to write one because it was the Islamic Brotherhood and that was at the time when it was no longer Morsi in power. It was El-sisi and the documentary material in the NDP package, which is Exhibit 6, it spoke there in Sections 1, 2 and 12, about the serious possibility of violence, harassment and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community, of the State and of also, extremist groups to persons who are perceived as non-Islamic or apostate and also anyone who they believe has insulted the religion.

[27] I do not believe, under the current regime, that you would find help or assistance by the State to get protected because of your own experience but also because of what the documentary material speaks about, the human rights situation in Egypt, how it’s continuing to deteriorate and how the authorities have arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly and many other rights and also, I’m aware that the current government is in a way, he’s facing a – the government’s facing a difficult situation between, there was a very large group that supported the more Islamic view and according to the documentary material, he is walking that tightrope between the more theological side.

[28] The documentary material also speaks about, in cases with respect to women where it had to do with sexual assault in Egypt, was underreported and they tried to bring in a law to make it a crime. However, not sexual assault but they’ve made sexual harassment a crime as that occurs so much. But they made the law so restrictive, whereby a woman had to provide two witnesses and they had to get them to the police, get the perpetrator to the police and it became to onerous, according to Human Rights Watch at Item 10.1 of the documentary material.

[29] Therefore, given all of this, that you could be imputed as being a religious non-conformist or an apostate and given that I believe your sons have experienced what would amount to persecution, in my view, because you are their mother and that you yourself have experienced that through the threats, the harassment, assault on you and the psychological turmoil that this has caused you, seeing how your sons are being attacked because of this situation with you, I do not believe that you would get help, that there is adequate state protection for you or any of you in Egypt and I also don’t believe you could go live anywhere else in the country to be safe because it is the same laws and the same, this network of these extremists is very large and you did try to move elsewhere and they found out about it.

[30] Therefore, for all these reasons, I find that the four of you are Convention refugees and I, therefore, accept your claims.

[31] Do you understand?

[32] Thank you and thanks, Mr. Interpreter, for all your help today.

[33] INTERPRETER: As always the pleasure was mine.

[34] MEMBER: Thank you. Good day to you all. Good day, Counsel.

[35] This hearing is now concluded. ———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 171

Citation: 2019 RLLR 171
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: June 27, 2019
Panel: M.J. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Sherif R Ashamalla
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-16851
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-16861
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000507-000518

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimants are married spouses, 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.

ALLEGATIONS

[2] The allegations in this case are found in the male claimant’s (principal claimant) Basis of Claim (BOC) form which will be summarized.

[3] The problems for these claimants commenced when the male claimant stood by and defended his Christian friends before a customary council session on 16 September 2016. The customary council was convened to settle a sectarian dispute between his Christian friends and Muslim tenants of the property owned by one of the friends. Many of those present were Salafists who follow a stricter, literalist and more puritanical interpretation of Islam. The customary council session was to determine the sectarian dispute between the male claimant’s friends, the Christian brothers, one of whom was the property owner and his two tenants who were also brothers, and the Christian guard, whom the Christian brothers defended against the aggression of the Muslim tenants. In the altercation that ensued, one of the Muslim tenants was struck with the iron skewer he used to threaten the house guard. The Christian owner had taken the skewer from the tenant and beat him with it allegedly in self defense. The tenant later died in hospital a few days later. The police made several arrests of the involved parties. Given the appearance of sectarian strife, the case was transferred to a customary council to adjudicate the dispute. The claimant was invited to attend the last session of the customary council. Members of a Salafist Jihadi group, one of the most radical groups in Egypt, were part of the customary council. Also present were the head of the Security Department in the Red Sea Governorate and the head of the National Security Department and the Salafist radical group was forcing the authorities to accept their point of view. In their view, it was unacceptable that a Christian was the offender who victimized a Muslim.

[4] The claimant expressed his opinion which opposed that of the Salafists and he was on the side of his Christian friends. It was the council that decided that the Christian offenders would pay the victim’s family in compensation for the death, the amount of two million Egyptian pounds was fined. The claimant’s position on the side of his Christian friends, given that he was a Muslim, angered a famous radical Muslim named XXXX XXXX. He accusingly asked the claimant if he was a Muslim or a Christian, which the claimant understood is a serious accusation in Egypt. The claimant also accused the council of unfairness and criticized the way they interpreted the Islamic religion. In response, Mr. XXXX XXXX became angry and approached the claimant and told him that he must reconsider his opinions against Islam or they will consider him an apostate. The claimant replied saying, “You are the ones that do not relate to Islam at all; you order a compensation of two million Egyptian pounds, for an accidental death by self-defence. This is not fair.” XXXX XXXX then threatened the claimant saying that they will find him even if he goes to the end of the world as they have people everywhere in Egypt and they will teach him right from wrong. The claimant took this as a threat that they would hurt him. Later in February 2017, he was contacted by this radical group and they threatened him and his wife because of her not wearing the Muslim dress. The claimant responded that they would not be able to hurt either him or his wife as they have a strong police department in Egypt that would protect them. In April while walking with his wife in Giza, they were assaulted and beaten by young people. During the attack one of the assailants stated “XXXX XXXX is telling you, hypocrite, apostate, that you are condemned by the rule of apostasy, you and your wife both. You know what apostasy means, this time we beat you, next time we slaughter both of you.” After receiving medical treatment for their injuries they had a lawyer file a report with the police on their behalf regarding the assault both claimants had suffered; however, as the issue was seen as a sectarian issue, it would have to be reported to the commanding officer and any report made would have to first be approved by the National Security authorities. The officer advised the lawyer to tell the claimants to stay away from Cairo for a couple of days because of the high risk that members of the radical group would find them. The claimant gave his lawyer power of attorney to file a case against the person known as XXXX XXXX and the claimants moved around Egypt hiding among friends to avoid the radical persons looking for them.

[5] The case was filed on May 21, 2017and the court set a date for a hearing on July 1, 2017. The court also ordered the police to investigate the matter and although they did not find XXXX XXXX, the claimant received threatening calls again and he was advised by his lawyer to flee the country and not return to Egypt. He fled to the USA on XXXX XXXX, 2017 where he stayed with a friend while his lawyer in Egypt arranged the translation of the claimant’s documents to be presented at his hearing. While waiting the month that it took for the translation, the male claimant continued to receive threatening calls on his Egyptian phone number. He also communicated with his wife using the internet. They decided to turn off their respective phones. The male claimant travelled to Canada by air on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and his wife arrived on XXXX XXXX, 2017 from Egypt, from where she had been in hiding with a friend. They subsequently made a claim for refugee protection. They fear that if they return to Egypt, the Salafist group members will find them and carry out their threats.

DETERMINATION

[6] The panel finds that the male claimant is a Convention refugee. However, the panel finds that the female claimant is not a Convention refugee. The panel’s reasons for the respective and different determinations are as follows.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[7] The panel finds that the claimants are both nationals of Egypt. The male claimant is Egyptian by his birth in Egypt and the female claimant by naturalization in 2012. This has been established by their testimony and by the supporting documentation filed, namely their respective Egyptian passports found in Exhibit 1, and from this evidence the panel concludes, on a balance of probabilities, that the claimants each have Egyptian citizenship.

[8] However, in the case of the female claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, the panel determines that she is also a citizen of the Philippines by her birth in that country. It is merely a formality for her to swear an oath of allegiance and she would be considered a dual citizen by the government of the Philippines.

Nexus

[9] In this case, the nexus to the definition is the imputed religion or lack of Islamic faith of the claimants, but primarily that of Mr. XXXX who came to the attention of a radical Salafist Jihadi group by his defense of his Coptic Christian friends who were one of the parties in a sectarian dispute. The nexus is the same for Ms. XXXX in that she is seen to be non-conforming, or not Islamic enough by her not wearing the Islamic dress despite being a convert from Christianity to Islam.

[10] The documentary material in the National Documentation Package in sections 1, 2, and 12 speaks about the serious possibility of violence, harassment, and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community of the State and also extremist groups to persons who are perceived as non-Islamic or apostate which I mentioned before or anyone who insults the religion.

[11] According to the claimants’ evidence, they seem to understand that they were being accused of not being Islamic enough by not wearing the Hijab in the case of Ms. XXXX as well as by having the Christian friends whom you defended against a Muslim in a dispute. The male claimant believes that as retribution for defending Christians against a Muslim, he may be accused of apostasy or treated as an apostate.

[12] Furthermore, with respect to Ms. XXXX, by not wearing the Islamic dress, such as the hijab, she was considered not Islamic enough and therefore there would be consequences according to this radical group that was sending her husband these threats and the consequences would be for her as well as for her spouse by his not insisting or not making her conform and wear the attire the Salafist radical group, deemed necessary.

Credibility

[13] The panel found the claimants to be credible witnesses. They provided their answers at this hearing without embellishment and they answered all the questions without discrepancies in their evidence. Their responses were consistent with the Basis of Claim form and with the other evidence in this case. Many questions were asked and their forthright responses assisted in establishing their credibility in a favourable manner. Therefore, as they were found to be credible witnesses, the panel accepts their allegations as credible.

State protection in Egypt

[14] The documentary material clearly indicates that anybody who is perceived to be a non believer in Egypt or a non-conformist to the social or religious mores, or someone who is perceived to not have faith is considered to have breached the social or religious mores and in some cases not perhaps in this case where they have not been accused of apostasy although the male claimant was threatened that he would be, but in other cases where persons have been accused of apostasy, that actually reaches the level of being considered a crime.

[15] The documentary material Exhibit 4, Sections 1, 2 and 12 speaks about the serious possibility of violence or harassment and persecution at the hands of the Muslim community by extremists groups to persons who they perceive to be non-Islamic or apostate or anyone whom they perceive to have insulted the religion.

[16] The documentary material found in both the (NDP) National Documentary Package and, counsel’s package of Exhibits 8 and 9, speaks about the human rights situation in Egypt which has deteriorated and continues to deteriorate.

[17] In Item 2.2, the annual report by Amnesty International titled, Egypt 2017/2018 speaks about the human rights situation as it continues to deteriorate and about how the human rights crisis continued unabated. The authorities used torture and other ill treatment and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people and dozens were extra judicially executed with impunity. While in previous years the authorities had arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, they escalated the crackdown of civil society by subjecting NGO staff to additional interrogations, travel bans and the freezing of assets. Arbitrary arrests and detentions which were then followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights defenders. These acts by authorities occurred routinely. In some cases detainees in political cases or government opponents were held in prolonged detention without charge or trial. In general, many human rights groups throughout the world believe that the Egyptian authorities have misused many of their powers against their own citizens.

[18] According to Item 2.2 of Exhibit 4, the latest Amnesty report regarding the exercise of freedom of religion, the authorities continued to violate this freedom by discriminating against Christians and there was continued impunity for sectarian attacks on Christian communities with the authorities relying on customary reconciliation and settlements agreed by local authorities and religious leaders. The violence by non-state actors against Christians increased significantly given the impunity by the authorities. While the claimants are not Christians, they are perceived as non-Muslims or apostates because the male claimant is taking the side of Christians over Muslims and his wife does not conform to the Islamic dress in public.

[19] The panel finds that the claimant would not receive protection from the Egyptian authorities under the current regime and given their past experience and according to what the documentary material states about the human rights situation in Egypt. It has continued to deteriorate and the authorities arbitrarily restricted the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and many other civil rights. Despite the semblance of legal court action in the claimant’s case against XXXX XXXX, the police had previously refused to take a report and advised him through his lawyer, to flee the area and not to risk being found by the Jihadists. Therefore, their actions of commencing an investigation were only initiated by the court ordering it. The police, as an arm of the Egyptian government do not seem able to protect the claimants based on the preponderance of material from the NDP and particularly Item 2.7., which speaks about the growth of Jihadists groups in Egypt, some with ties to ISIS. Furthermore, when a charge of apostasy is brought against someone or a charge of denigration of religions, the treatment meted out by the police can be considered to be persecutory. In Item 12.1, at page 10 it states the following, regarding such treatment:

[20] In August police arrested and interrogated a man whom they alleged had converted from Islam to Christianity. Police released him, reportedly telling him he was too old to withstand the treatment they ordinarily would give to apostates from Islam, according to sources.

Internal Flight Alternative

[21] The claimants cannot go elsewhere in the country to stay safe without having to hide because they would face the same possibility or serious grounds of persecution throughout the entire country as the radical Jihadists are found throughout all of Egypt according to the preponderance of the documentary materials.

The Philippines – Female Claimant’s Second Country of Reference

[22] According to Williams¹ a claimant may be considered to be a national of a country where the evidence establishes that it is within their control to acquire the citizenship of that country. If there is an automatic right to citizenship in that country under the law, if there is no discretion on the part of the Philippine government to refuse her citizenship and if the claimant can re-acquire Philippine citizenship by requirements that are mere formalities, then the claim can be assessed against the Philippines. Furthermore, if the claimant has no well-founded fear of persecution in that country of nationality then the claim for refugee status will be denied.

[23] The female claimant is a naturalized citizen of Egypt as of 2012. She was born in the Philippines and had that citizenship since her birth to at least one Filipino citizen. The matter of dual citizenship is addressed in Item 3.5 of the National Documentation Package.² According to the information contained in this document, the claimant was a dual citizen of the Philippines and Egypt as a result of the passage in 2003 of Republic Act (RA) 9225. This document states the following at page 2:

How does one reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225?

Natural-born Filipinos who lost their Filipino citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country may re-acquire Philippine citizenship by taking the Philippine Oath of Allegiance before a duly authorized Philippine official. The Philippine Oath of Allegiance does not require a person to renounce his allegiance to any other country.

[24] Section 3 of the Republic Act No. 9225, which was passed on 29 August 2003, states the following:

Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship – Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization of citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship” upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:

“I________, solemny (sic) swear (or affrim) (sic) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”³

[25] The previously-mentioned Act further states that:

Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.

State Protection in the Philippines

[26] The female claimant stated she fears returning to the Philippines as she fears that her family members will cause her problems. They have rejected her since they learned of her conversion to Islam in 2005 after she told her mother of the conversion when she was to marry her spouse, a Muslim. She had converted in 1996 and returned to the Philippines in 2004 but had not told anyone of her conversion fearing their rejection. When she was to marry she told her mother that she was marrying a Muslim and was asked why a Muslim. Then when she told her mother that she had converted she was not accepted. Her cousin XXXX in the Philippines, who does not care about the conversion was told to tell the claimant that she is a Muslim and she has nothing in the Philippines. The claimant understood that to mean that she is not to receive any inheritance as a result and that they have divided up any money that there was and have purposely excluded her from receiving a share. Furthermore, the female claimant believed that her Muslim marriage would not be recognized in the Philippines and thus it would need to be registered but would not be allowed to register it. The panel has no evidence that a Muslim marriage would not be registered in the Philippines. On the contrary, having consulted Exhibit 5, the NDP for the Philippines dated 30 April 2018, at Item 12.1 the International Religious Freedom Report indicates that about 10 to 12 percent of the population was estimated in 2012 to be Muslim. The majority of Muslims reside in Mindanao and nearby islands in the south with an increasing number of Muslims migrating to the urban centers of Manila and Cebu. The female claimant’s family live in Iloilo City which is a one hour flight from Manila. The claimant has not rebutted the presumption of state protection regarding the Philippines should any family member try to cause her harm due to her conversion to Islam. Even if they were to learn of the claimant being in the Philippines and were to travel there to locate her, the panel finds that there would be adequate state protection for her in the Philippines.

[27] States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except in situations where they are in a state of complete breakdown4. From the documentary evidence,⁵ the panel finds that the Philippines, regardless of its current political, economic, cultural and social problems, is not a state that is close to a complete breakdown. Consequently, the presumption that it is capable of protecting its citizens applies.⁶ According to the documentary evidence, the Philippines is a functioning multiparty, constitutional republic and a democracy. Therefore the presumption that the state is capable of protecting its citizens supersedes the principle that international protection should be sought. Where a state is in effective control of its territory, has police and civil authority in place and makes serious effort to protect its citizens, the mere fact that the state’s efforts are not always successful will not rebut the presumption of state protection.⁷

Burden of Proof

[28] Absent an admission by the state of its inability to protect the claimant (the evidence in this regard is silent), the burden of proof is on the claimant to show through “clear and convincing” evidence the state’s inability to protect her and thus successfully rebut the presumption of state protection.⁸ Such evidence could be past personal incidents in which state protection did not materialize or evidence of similarly-situated persons let down by state protection mechanisms. Failing this, the claimant could provide reliable and probative evidence that satisfies the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), on a balance of probabilities, that the state protection in the Philippines respectively, is inadequate.⁹

[29] There is legislation in the Philippines, known as Republic (RA) 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, which criminalizes violence within intimate relationships and the family. Response to Information Request number PHL105113.E¹⁰ reports about the efforts that government agencies have made to address the issue of violence against women and provide state protection. It speaks about the governmental agencies, mechanisms and support services in place to deal with this type of violence. It explains the different restraining orders such as the Barangay protection order, the temporary protection order and the permanent protection order. An Ombudsman is present in the country to deal with complaints when victims feel that the authorities have treated them unfairly.¹¹ The government has taken measures to deal with violence against women and therefore has demonstrated a willingness to deal with this issue. Moreover, it appears that their efforts have been reasonably effective on an operational level. Consequently, while the protection provided by state authorities in the Philippines may not be perfect, it is adequate in the panel’s opinion.

CONCLUSION

[30] Based on the foregoing reasons, the panel finds that, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a Convention refugee. Also based on the foregoing reasons, in the protection claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX, the panel finds that she is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, given the panel’s finding that there is state protection available to her in the Philippines, her second country of reference. Furthermore, she has not rebutted the presumption of state protection in the Philippines, as required.

[31] Thus, the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX is rejected and the panel finds that she is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[32] The panel further finds that the claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Convention refugee and his claim is allowed.

(signed) M.J. Vega

1 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Williams, 2005 FCA 126

2 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package (NDP) Index for Philippines, version 30 April 2018, Item 3.5, Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. R.A. 9225/ Dual Citizenship.

3 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) Index for Philippines, version 29 April 2016, Item 3.3, Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, Republic Act No. 9225

4 Villafranca: M.E.I. v. Villafranca, Ignacio (F.C.A., no. A-69-90), Marceau, Hugessen, decary, December 18, 1992. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca, (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.).

5 Exhibit 11, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Cyprus, version 20 June 2016.

6 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4^th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 709.

7 Villafranca: ME.I. v. Villafranca, Ignacio (F.C.A.,no. A-69-90), Marceau, Hugessen, decary, December 18, 1992. Reported: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca, (1992), 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 (F.C.A.).

8 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4^th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85, at 724.

9 Flores Carillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.). para 30.

10 Exhibit 5, NDP Index, Item 5.1, Response to Information Request PHL105113.E.

11 Exhibit 5, NDP Index, Item 2.1, U.S. Department of State Report for the Philippines for 2017

All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 170

Citation: 2019 RLLR 170
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 15, 2019
Panel: M. Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Latoya Graham
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-13974
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-14095
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000437-000441

DECISION

[1] MEMBER: This is the decision in the claims with respect to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. The principal File Number is TB7-13974.

[2] The adult claimant claims to be a citizen of Egypt and her son XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to be a citizen of United States of America. Both claimants are claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

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

[4] Furthermore, the adult claimant Ms. XXXX is the designated representative of her minor child XXXX. In this claim, I have also taken into consideration the Chairperson’s Guidelines with respect to women refugee or gender refugee claims and this is Guideline 4.

[5] I find that the principal claimant is a national of Egypt as is established by her testimony as well as by the supporting documentation filed, namely, her passport which is found in Exhibit 1, and from this evidence I conclude on a balance of probabilities that she has Egyptian citizenship.

[6] With respect to XXXX, I find that he is also a citizen of the United States of America and I conclude this from his American passport as well as his American birth certificate, both the documents have been filed as Exhibits.

[7] I find, Ms. XXXX, that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons, and I also find that your son, XXXX XXXX, is not a Convention refugee and I will explain it a little later.

[8] In this case, the issue of the claimant’s identity is partly that she is not only an Egyptian citizen but she is also, and perhaps foremost, she is identified as a Palestinian, and that is because both her parents were and all her family members are Palestinians, and one could say that then the nexus could be either under the issue of national or rather, because it is not a State, the lack of nationality, but it is in her case as in other persons who are Palestinians of Palestinian heritage, it is part of their identity.

[9] In the case of the claimant, she is not a stateless Palestinian because she has the nationality of an Egyptian citizen, but this claim is based on the fact that the treatment that she has received repeatedly over the years has been that of imputed or that she is imputed as though she were a stateless Palestinian even though she is not.

[10] So, the Basis of Claim Form contains the allegations of this case, I have briefly touched on it. The claimant was married once before. It was in that marriage that she acquired her Egyptian citizenship. She is currently divorced from that husband, she had a child with that first spouse and she later, after the divorce, married her current husband.

[11] Her current husband is also of Palestinian origin and lived also in Saudi Arabia, and that marriage was arranged by her mother, but nonetheless that husband or current husband has no legal status in Egypt. He is not a part of this claim. His circumstances have been testified to by the claimant as through his circumstances she has been able to speak about how persons that have no other citizenship or that are stateless such as her husband, how they are treated, and also I mean her mother is also in a similar situation but they are not part of this claim.

[12] So, the claimants left Egypt, and in 2017, went to the United States of America where she stayed for 1 day and then crossed into Canada or tried to, at the border she made her claim for refugee protection. She had a sister in Canada who has been living here for 21 years, and it was on the basis of having a sister here that she was allowed into Canada with her son to make the claim.

[13] Her testimony as well as her Basis of Claim Form speaks about many times being harassed and humiliated at checkpoints because her identification indicates that she is of Palestinian origin and not of Egyptian origin.

[14] She indicates that on her visits when she would leave Egypt and return either to Saudi Arabia mostly, then she would face about twice a year for about 4 years she said she would face hours of being made to wait by the security officials at the airport and she felt humiliated at this all the time.

[15] She also puts in her Basis of Claim Form and later spoke in testimony about how she suffered discrimination repeatedly because she is a Palestinian, and that whenever she went for a job application or an interview, jobs for which she was very qualified, as she had worked in Saudi Arabia on a work permit and worked in these jobs, and yet in Egypt as soon as they notice the identifiers in her ID card or in her passport, the first two digits would indicate that she is a Palestinian, she never received the job in all the years that she kept trying to find employment in Egypt.

[16] She testified that she was often told by some of the employers or prospective employers that the reason she was being denied the job was because of her Palestinian origin.

[17] She also spoke within her Basis of Claim Form how she was also subjected to car searches and personal searches at checkpoints by police and the questioning that was asked was because of her Palestinian status despite being an Egyptian citizen.

[18] So, Ms. XXXX, I have found you to be a credible witness. You did provide your answers at this hearing without embellishment. You answered all the questions without discrepancies in your evidence and your responses were consistent with your Basis of Claim Form and the amendments as well as with your other evidence. I did ask you many questions and I find that these have assisted in establishing your credibility in a favourable manner.

[19] Now, I have considered the documentary material, much of which speaks mostly about stateless Palestinians and your situation is not the same as theirs, but counsel in her submissions made some interesting points, which are especially about how, while you have the protection so to speak of having an Egyptian passport, that’s the official position and in theory, that it is a de facto situation you do not benefit it seems from that Egyptian citizenship, and that you are humiliated and questioned longer than anybody else who has an Egyptian passport and that is because of your ties to Palestinian origins, and this no matter what citizenship you seem to have keeps following you.

[20] The counsel made reference to the Federal Court decision of Xie about the systematic denial of a right to work.

[21] Now, the right to work of your husband is also existent, but I am not looking at his situation am looking at the fact that even though you have the benefit of an Egyptian passport in Egypt, you have still been denied systematically, I would say, the ability or to secure employment to support yourself, and when this happens on a systematic basis, I consider the right to support yourself to be a core human right, and therefore I find that you have faced cumulative discrimination that amounts to persecution.

[22] There has been, I believe in your case, a pattern of repression and the effects of which are that the institutions such as the authority of the Egyptian government which should be protecting you, it would seem from the evidence that you have been denied and that you are not provided with that protection, partly because it is the government itself that made the decrees and certain laws making it harder or practically for stateless Palestinians they have no rights, but for persons such as yourself, there doesn’t seem to, even though you are not a stateless Palestinian, the distinction and the protection you should have been afforded, I don’t believe has been afforded to you.

[23] The document referred by counsel, which is in the National Documentation Package found in Item 3.4, it speaks more generally there about Palestinians in Egypt. It speaks about how the policy changes, or what I refer to as a decree, were made by Mubarak, but these have continued and they have not improved. These have restricted work and the ability of families to reunite.

[24] While that was perhaps more so to address the situation of those that were not granted the benefit of an Egyptian citizenship, in your case, as I have already mentioned, you are perceived to be Palestinian and that you have then experienced similar discriminatory practices that they have had imposed on them in Egypt, and so therefore, if you were being denied your rights as an Egyptian citizen over and over again because of your origins as a Palestinian, then that in my opinion amounts to persecution.

[25] Given this current situation that is described in the National Documentation Package with how the government since the revolution in 2011 and then again afterwards which brought in the current government, the situation does not appear to have become better with respect to human rights.

[26] On the contrary, it appears that human rights have deteriorated according to many sources, and the preponderance of documents including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and the United States Department of State, they speak about the rights, the authorities arbitrarily restricting rights to the population, and in your case if you are imputed to be a Palestinian national or a person who is of Palestinian origin, then I don’t believe you would be protected.

[27] So, I don’t believe that there is State protection that is adequate in your situation given that you are overall perceived to be of the Palestinian origin and often treated as though you were stateless.

[28] Also with respect to internal flight alternative, the situation for you will be the same throughout the country in my opinion. I don’t believe that you would have an internal flight alternative. So, you cannot go elsewhere in the country apart from out of Cairo and stay safe because you would face the same serious grounds of persecution.

[29] So, for these reasons, I find that you, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are a Convention refugee, and I therefore accept your claim.

[30] With respect to XXXX, however, there has been no evidence submitted regarding the United States of America that would refute the presumption of State protection for your son in that country of which I find that he is a citizen by virtue of his having a United States of America passport.

[31] Therefore, I find that XXXX XXXX XXXX is not a Convention refugee and I reject his claim for protection. Do you understand that?

[32] Thank you. This hearing is now ended and the hearing is concluded.

[33] Thanks Mr. Interpreter for all your assistance. Good day counsel. Good day everyone.

[34] INTERPRETER: Thank you.

[35] COUNSEL: Thank you.

[36] MEMBER: All the best to you ma’am.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-