Category: Egypt

Citation: 2019 RLLR 167
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 17, 2019
Panel: Kenneth D. MacLean
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Imtenan Abd El Razik
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-01796
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000360-000370

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     XXXX XXXX XXXX, claims to be a citizens of Egypt, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

[2]     The claimant’s allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC), and are summarized as follows. The claimant alleges that if returned to Egypt she faces persecution on the basis of her imputed political opinion, as the family member of a person who is perceived by the Egyptian regime as being a member or supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[3]     The claimant is married to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX was born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in Sharkia Egypt.² The claimant alleges, that from June 9, 1993, until January 17, 2005, XXXX was held in detention by the security forces of the then regime of Hosni Mubarak.³ The claimant alleges that XXXX detention was politically motivated and baseless, and that he was never charged, tried, or convicted of any crimes against the Egyptian state. She alleges that XXXX was perceived to be an Islamist, and consequently, a threat to the Egyptian regime. The panel considered a judgment from a case for compensation made by the “Preliminary Court of South Cairo” in favour of the Plaintiff, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX against the Defendant, the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, in the amount of 12,000 LE plus legal fees.⁴

[4]     The claimant alleges, that following his release from detention, she married XXXX and then arranged for him to join her in Saudi Arabia, where she had worked as a XXXX since 1998. The claimant alleges that her status in Saudi Arabia was contingent upon her having employment, which she had secured with XXXX XXXX, a member of the Saudi Royal family. Similarly, the claimant alleges that XXXX was able to secure his status on the basis of his employment by XXXX XXXX, another member of the Saudi Royal family.

[5]     The claimant and XXXX have three children, all born in Saudi Arabia. The claimant alleges that her children were registered against XXXX Saudi Arabian resident permit.

[6]     The claimant alleges, that in 2007 XXXX returned to Egypt briefly, in order to sell a certain property he owned, and that during his brief time in the country he was detained by Egyptian security officials on his arrival, questioned as to his whereabouts and activities, and that on his departure he was again detained and subject to questioning. The claimant alleges that XXXX swore never to return to Egypt.

[7]     The claimant alleges that in 2016 she was given notice by her employer that her job was ending, because her employer and her children were relocating to the US so that her children could attend school there. Similarly, Ahmed received notice from his employer that his contract would not be renewed because she was reducing her staff. The claimant alleges that fearing a return to Egypt, she and XXXX set out to find a country to which they could relocate. Attempts to travel to New Zealand were unsuccessful, and subsequently, on or about October 24, 2016, she and her family were issued tourist visas for Brazil, to which they all travelled on XXXX XXXX, 2016.⁵

[8]     The claimant alleges that from their arrival in Brazil, the family encountered difficulties with crime making them fearful of remaining there. The claimant alleges that it was decided to try to find another jurisdiction to which the family could flee, and that as her residency permit was still valid, she returned to Saudi Arabia on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. Where she was temporarily sponsored as a member of XXXX XXXX staff, as a courtesy, to enable her to find employment elsewhere. The claimant alleges that by the latter half of 2017, being unable to secure employment, and despairing from being separated from her family, she felt the need to return to Brazil for which she received a visa on November 26, 2017.

[9]     The claimant alleges, that on the basis of advice received from the person helping her obtain her Brazilian visa, she applied for a visa to come to Canada, which was issued on January 8, 2018. The claimant travelled to Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, where upon she made her claim for refugee protection.

DETERMINATION

[10]   The panel finds that the claimant has met the onus to demonstrate that she is a Convention refugee, on the grounds of her imputed political opinion. Her claim is accepted.

Issues

[11]   Identity and Credibility are always at issue, as is whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution. The panel also considered whether the claimant had continuing status in Saudi Arabia or had achieved status in Brazil.

Analysis

Identity

[12]   The claimant’s identity and Egyptian nationality are established on the basis of her testimony, and her valid Egyptian passport.

Credibility

[13]   The presumption of truthfulness applies to the claimant’s sworn testimony, unless there is a reason to doubt its truthfulness.⁶ Material contradictions, inconsistencies, and omissions in the claimant’s evidence, if not satisfactorily explained, are a basis upon which the RPD may find that a claimant lacks credibility. A general finding of lack of credibility on the part of the applicant may extend to all relevant information flowing from her testimony.⁷

[14]   The panel makes a general finding that the claimant is a credible witness. Her testimony was spontaneous, complete, and consistent with the information contained in her BOC. She answered all questions put to her to the best of her ability. Her testimony was appropriately buttressed by objective documentary evidence.

Claimant’s Status in Brazil

[15]   Despite having made a claim for refugee protection in Brazil, the claimant does not have any legal status in Brazil. Among the documents disclosed by the Minister, were copies of documents written in Portuguese bearing the photographs of an adult male and three children. The documents were not translated, however, each document includes the words “Solicitação de refúgio” which literally translates as “Request for Refuge.” The four documents were all issued on December 7, 2016, with validity through December 7, 2017. Also included in the document is reference to Brazilian law 9,474/1997. The panel takes notice that Brazilian law 9,474/1997 is the legislation defining the mechanisms for implementing the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, roughly the equivalent of Part Two of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act dealing with refugee protection.

[16]   The claimant testified that she too had been issued this form, but it was not among the documents she brought to Canada. Given the expiry date on the forms issued to the other family members, the claimant was asked if she had renewed her claim, which she answered in the negative.

[17]   The claimant’s husband XXXX gave testimony by teleconference from Brazil and was queried on his knowledge of these documents. XXXX testified, that while the claimant had been issued such a document in 2016, because she was no longer in Brazil it had not been renewed, as had the documents for himself and the children. XXXX testified that the renewal of his form was automatic, and that new ones were not issued for the children. The panel ordered the production of the most recent documents pertaining to XXXX and/or the children. Received post-hearing, the panel considered that XXXX is in possession of a Brazilian refugee claim form valid through December 7, 2018.⁸

[18]   Asked if his claim had been the subject of a hearing, XXXX answered in the negative. Asked if the document granted the children and him any status, he testified that it allowed them to live in Brazil and rent accommodation, but did not grant the right to have bank accounts, driver’s license, or to work. Based on these documents, and the testimony of both the claimant and her husband on the subject of their possibly having status in Brazil, the panel is stratified, that at best, XXXX and the children have open refugee claims that have not been determined.

The Claimant Cannot Return to Saudi Arabia

[19]   The panel takes notice of the fact that the admission of foreign workers to Saudi Arabia is regulated, and that in order to have a right to reside there a person requires an employment sponsor. The testimony of the claimant, about how she and XXXX were able to reside and work in Saudi Arabia, is consistent with the panel’s understanding of the process by which foreign nationals are able to reside in Saudi Arabia.

[20]   The panel considered the “Electronic Exit Re-Entry Visa (single) with Duration issued to the claimant. The document makes reference to an Iqama, which is the term used in Saudi Arabia for a residence permit, issued to foreigners who arrive in Saudi Arabia on an employment visa. The claimant’s document indicates that her Iqama was valid through January 9, 2019, but it bears an exit before date of April 14, 2018. The document stipulates that the Visa is valid for stays up to 90 days, or until the Exit Before Date, and that the Visa holder is not allowed to re-enter Saudi Arabia if the Iqama has expired or after the Exit-Entry Visa expiry date. In this case, the claimant was granted a 60 day stay, and no dependents were included in the visa. The claimant entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and therefore as of April 4, 2018, her right to re-enter Saudi Arabia had expired. The panel is satisfied that neither the claimant nor XXXX currently have a right to enter and remain in Saudi Arabia, and thus, there is no question of their being able to return there as neither have a valid Visa.

Well-founded Fear of Persecution

[21]   On the surface, the claimant does not have a claim. If anyone should be before the panel it is XXXX but he is in Brazil.

[22]   On the face of the facts before the panel, XXXX would have a clear claim for refugee protection on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution, because of his imputed political opinion. But, at what risk is the claimant? The claimant argues that the risk to her is collateral to that faced by XXXX, on the basis of their relationship and the likelihood that the regime, which is dead set on exacting retribution on the Muslim Brotherhood, would have no compunction to use the claimant in order to get to XXXX.

[23]   Is there any evidence to support such a conclusion? The panel considers that prior to 2005, the claimant was largely an unknown quantity in Egypt. She had grown up and obtained her education in an uneventful way. The Egyptian state came into her life only in 1993, after she and XXXX were engaged to be wed. XXXX disappeared several weeks after their engagement, and because the claimant was not then a tier one relative (parent or spouse), she was not allowed to visit him after he was eventually located within the Egyptian security system. It was only after XXXX release in January 2005, that the couple could continue their relationship; marrying that July. The claimant testified that three days after she wed, XXXX she was taken by a security officer to the local office and questioned. The claimant testified that she felt very worried, as this was the first time she had been to such a place.

[24]   The claimant remained in Egypt until the beginning of the school year, when she returned to Saudi Arabia and began preparing the documents to support his joining her there, which he did in 2006. XXXX had no difficulty leaving Egypt in 2006, but when he returned briefly to sell property in 2007, he was detained at the airport for several hours, both on his entry, and exit. The claimant testified that the local security office in Sharkia was contacted to see if there were any concerns. XXXX testified that it was because of his treatment in 2007 that he vowed never to return to Egypt, which he has not.

[25]   For her part, the claimant has only returned to Egypt once since 2005. In 2010 she returned to her home to visit family, taking her children, then only two with her. Asked if anything untoward befell her on this trip, the claimant testified that she entered normally but that when she went to apply for the renewal of her permit to work outside Egypt, which had been issued the same day the last time she applied, on this occasion its renewal was delayed for three days without any explanation. Thus, despite her low profile, there is some evidence that the claimant has come to the attention of the authorities in Egypt at the time of her marriage in 2005, and again in 2010.

Objective Evidence of Human Rights Abuses and the Treatment of those Perceived to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood

[26]   Both the return trips to Egypt occurred before the events of 2011, which saw Hosni Mubarak removed from office, the Muslim Brotherhood legalized and elected to parliamentary power in the 2011 general election, and ultimately, the election of Mohamed Morsi as President in June 2012. The Morsi government was brief, his being ousted by the military in a coup d’état in July 2013, following which General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi assumed power. Under the “Sisi” regime, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned and declared a terrorist organization.⁹

[27]   The documentary evidence confirms, that under the Sisi regime,

[H]undreds of [Muslim Brotherhood] members and supporters have been put on trial and given harsh sentences in multiple cases. Rights advocates have repeatedly criticised the mass prosecutions, saying they lack guarantees for a fair trial.”¹⁰

[28]   Harsh treatment has been reported for persons alleged to be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the same document it notes that,

[A]ccording to Human Rights Watch, on 11 April 2015, “51 alleged supporters of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” were tried in a mass trial, where a judge sentenced “37 people to life in prison and confirmed the death penalties of 14 others.¹¹

[29]   In a 2017 report published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, its author reports that, since the return of military rule in 2013, 

[A] new authoritarian regime has emerged in Egypt. The military establishment, security services, and intelligence agencies now rule the country and have managed to reintroduce fear as a daily constant in a nation still in dire straits.¹²

[30]   Elsewhere in the document it relates that:

After a brief democratic opening, a new authoritarian regime has emerged in Egypt. The military establishment, security services, and intelligence agencies now rule the country and have managed to reintroduce fear as a daily constant in a nation still in dire straits.

…

Using undemocratic legal and judicial tools with a zeal unmatched even during the long authoritarian rule of former president Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011), Egypt’ s generals are closing the public space by cracking down on autonomous civil society and independent political parties, asphyxiating the practice of pluralist politics, and pushing citizens away from peaceful and active engagement in public affairs. Scare tactics and police brutality are being used for wide-scale repression. Key opposition groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a small number of political parties, human rights defenders, and young activists are under immense pressure and struggling against the yoke of the government.¹³

[31]   Amnesty International in its 2018 “Egypt. Amnesty International Report 2017/18: The State of the World’s Human Rights” reports that:

Egypt’s human rights crisis continued unabated. The authorities used torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people, and dozens were extrajudicially executed with impunity. The crackdown on civil society escalated with NGO staff being subjected to additional interrogations, travel bans and asset freezes. Arbitrary arrests and detentions followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights defenders were routine. Mass unfair trials continued before civilian and military courts, with dozens sentenced to death. Women continued to be subjected to sexual and gender-based violence and were discriminated against in law and practice.¹⁴

[32]   Other items in the Human Rights section of the NDP speak to a worsening human rights situation, government actors acting with impunity, the crack down on opponents of the government perceived or otherwise. Thus, the objective evidence supports a conclusion that political freedoms and human rights are being curtailed by the government and its agents, and that, in particular, members or perceived supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are being targeted.

Expert Opinion

[33]   The claimant has filed an expert report prepared for her by Dr. 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, dated December 21, 2018.¹⁵ The panel has considered Dr. XXXX Curriculum Vita, and is satisfied that he is qualified to provide an opinion on human rights and the political situation in Egypt.¹⁶ In his report, he provided a political context for his opinion, citing various sources, including several as found in the NDP for Egypt. His major conclusions mirror the panel’s findings in respect of the human rights and political situation in Egypt.

[34]   In this context, he offers the following, in respect of the claimant and her husband:

“If the [claimant] were to return to Egypt, she would face a non-trival risk of arrest given her marriage to XXXX XXXX, who from his activity at his university and local mosque, appears to be someone who the regime viewed as supporting the [Muslim Brotherhood].”

Given his lengthy imprisonment under the Mubarak regime XXXX “faces a heightened risk of reimprisonment should he return to Egypt.”

The claimant has “suffered harassment at the hands of the Egyptian security apparatus as a result of her marriage to Mr. XXXX.”

Given the sharp increase in political repression since 2013, should she return to Egypt, “the Egyptian security services might increase their harassment of [the Claimant], perhaps even arrest her, either on accusations of belonging to a banned organization or in an attempt to pressure [XXXX] to return to Egypt.”

The fact that XXXX was released from prison during the Mubarak era “is no evidence that he is no longer of interest to the Egyptian government.”

The Egyptian authorities “have long employed a kind of ‘catch and release’ approach in which large numbers of people who are known to the security apparatus (with or without charges) are swept up whenever there is unrest.”

” … targeting family members and friends of political prisoners for persecution based purely on their association with a political prisoner has been an all too common method of operation in Egypt over decades of military rule.

” … the record before me very strongly supports of the conclusion that [the claimant] has a reasonable basis for fearing political persecution should she return to Egypt.”

CONCLUSION

[35]   The panel finds, that in consideration of both the subjective and objective evidence, there is a nexus between the claimant’s situation and the Convention ground of political opinion. The panel finds that on a looking forward assessment, should the claimant be returned to Egypt, there is a serious possibility that she will face persecution at the hands of the state or state actors, owing to her being associated by marriage to a known victim of state persecution, to wit, her husband XXXX. Since the state is the likely agent of persecution, the panel need not consider either state protection or an internal flight alternative, for there would be no place in Egypt that she would be safe, from the state. Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts her claim.

(signed) KENNETH D. MACLEAN    

January 17, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 4, Passport, at p. 25.

3 Exhibit 7, at p. 9-13.

4 Exhibit 7, at p. 14-18.

5 Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Egyptian passport bearing Brazilian tourist visa stamp dated November 25, 2016.

6  Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 220 (F.C.T.D.).

7 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.); 11 Imm. LR. (2d) 81 (F.C.A.) at 244.

8 Exhibit 9.

9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), item 4.5.

10 Ibid. at s. 3.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid, item 4.8.

13 Exhibit 3, (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Item 4.8.

14 Ibid, item 2.2.

15 Exhibit 6.

16 Exhibit 6 & 7.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 165
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 4, 2019
Panel: William T. Short
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Zainab Jamal
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-00625
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000288 – 000294

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]     XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 34 is a citizen of Egypt who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in that country on the account of the fact that he is perceived by the ruling regime of President El-Sisi to be a member of, or a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. He accordingly claims to be a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹ The claimant also claims to be a person in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).²

ALLEGATIONS

[2]     The following factual allegations are made by the claimant that he would face persecution in Egypt because of perceived political opinion, which has established a connection to a ground for claiming protection as a Convention refugee.

[3]     The claimant alleges that he was a small businessman in Egypt and owned a shop selling XXXX and other items. He was a supporter of President Morsi, because he thought that Morsi would act for the good of the common people, when he was elected President of Egypt in 2012. However, General El-Sisi came to power by a military coup in 2013.

[4]     On May 7, 2013, the claimant was arrested while taking part in a peaceful demonstration in front of the Ibrahim Morsi Mosque. The claimant says that he was accused of being part of the Freedom and Justice Party (a part of the Muslim Brotherhood) and was detained for 17 days. During that time the claimant was repeatedly beaten, and kept in inhumane conditions, consisting of severe overcrowding, no toilet facilities, and being forced to sleep on the floor in the same place where he had to urinate.

[5]     After that experience, the claimant, upon his release, resolved not to take part in any further political activity.

[6]     All was calm until 2016, when El-Sisi took the decision to cede the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. The claimant, who held deep feelings about this subject, put a sign in his window that effectively stated that Egypt was not for sale. The claimant believes that the sign led the police to beat down his door at 4:00 am on December 5, 2016 and arrested him again. This time the claimant was taken to jail in his pyjamas where he was pushed down the steps and as a result he suffered a fracture to his left leg. Although the claimant’s leg was broken, he was refused medical attention and was beaten for making a lot of noise. During his time in jail the second time, the claimant was tortured and held in solitary confinement for four days. After being held for a total of nine days, the claimant was released.

[7]     On December 18, 2016, he immediately sought medical attention for his left leg and was informed that it had been fractured. His leg was put in a cast for about six weeks afterwards.

[8]     The claimant maintains that after this last episode, he was thoroughly sick and tired of Egypt and sought another country to live in. To that end, he travelled to the United Kingdom (U.K.) in April of 2017. In England, the claimant consulted a lawyer, who advised him that successfully claiming refugee protection would take a long time and that he would have a better chance to successfully claim refugee status if he returned to Egypt and obtained U.K. visitors visas for his wife and children. Taking the lawyer’s advice, the claimant returned to Egypt in XXXX of 2017.

[9]     After returning to Egypt, the claimant heard that Canada was also a country to which he and his family could potentially travel and seek shelter. The claimant applied for a Canadian visa in July 2017.

[10]   The claimant remembers briefly discussing the handing over of the two islands to a friend on the street. The next day, while the claimant was away, purchasing inventory for his store, he was contacted by his employee via telephone. The employee informed him that the police had come to his store and wished to arrest the claimant. Later, the police went to the claimant’s home looking for him; when he could not be found, they arrested his brother. His brother was later released after questioning.

[11]   In the meantime, the claimant hid out at a cousin’s house in another province. His visa to Canada was issued and his brother, who had held his passport was able to send it to the claimant through an intermediary.

[12]   The claimant then purchased his airline ticket to come to Canada. He was able to leave Cairo with the assistance of his cousin who had connections to officialdom. The claimant was able to move through Cairo airport where his documents were examined twice. He left Egypt on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and arrived in Canada shortly thereafter. He applied for refugee protection in December of 2018.

DETERMINATION

[13]   The panel accepts the certified copy of the claimant’s Egyptian passport³ entered into evidence and finds that the claimant is who he claims to be and is a citizen of Egypt.

The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his claim for protection.

ANALYSIS

[14]   The claimant has presented a number of documents, which in my opinion corroborate his allegations of fact. Specifically, I have taken note of the following documents and their certified translations; medical report⁴ confirming that the claimant suffered a broken leg; record of arrest;⁵ as well as letters from the claimant’s father, brother, and cousin.⁶

[15]   Given the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the allegations of fact alleged by the claimant are more likely are true.

[16]   Even though I am somewhat skeptical about the way that the claimant left Egypt for the second time, I am mindful that, although it is a dictatorship, Egypt is a creaky, inefficient bureaucracy, rife with inefficiencies and corruption and lacking the advanced information technology employed by other absolutist regimes. I accordingly find on a balance of probabilities that it was not implausible that the claimant left Egypt as alleged, passing through Cairo airport without attracting the attention of the authorities.

Subjective fear  

[17]   The largest problem that the claimant had to overcome, in this matter, was the fact that he had successfully left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 and had voluntarily returned to that country on XXXX XXXX of the same year.

[18]   When asked why he had returned to Egypt in XXXX of 2017, the claimant said in effect that he returned because even though he was fed up with Egypt and no longer wished to live there at that time, he believed that he would not have any more problems because he was not politically active as he was not taking part in any demonstrations or showing outward signs of political activism. The claimant surmises that he was speaking with a friend on the street in July 2017, and he was overheard mentioning the ceding of Tiran Island and Sanafir Island. The claimant believes that it was this incident that triggered the issue of the arrest warrant on July 23, 2017.

[19]   The claimant testified that he had sought legal advice in the U.K. and he was advised that it would be better for him to return to Egypt and apply for U.K. visas with his wife and family. He was also told it would be better for all of them to apply for asylum in the U.K.

[20]   In the circumstances, I am cognizant of three points:

[21]   At the time of his return to Egypt in XXXX of 2017, the claimant thought that he had nothing to fear from the authorities. He reasoned that they would have no further interest in him because he was no longer politically active, in any way. He did not realize at the time that he could be re-arrested on the smallest pretext, or for no reason at all;

[22]   The claimant had sought and obtained legal advice in the U.K. Unfortunately, for him, that advice was not necessarily as wise as it might have been. The claimant was acting in a reasonable way and should not in these very specific circumstances suffer for acting on professional advice in returning to Egypt. 

[23]   After he became aware of the new arrest warrant issued on July 23, 2017, the claimant immediately went into hiding and left Egypt by surreptitious means. After July 23, 2017 and until the present time, the claimant has demonstrated a constant subjective fear of the governing regime in Egypt.

Objective possibility of harm

[24]   I am of the view that the findings of fact, as noted above certainly indicate that the claimant, should he return to Egypt would face a very real danger of persecution on account of his perceived support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

[25]   Moreover, the allegations made by the claimant are not inconsistent with the National Documentation Package.⁷ The U.S. Department of State Country Reports indicate that in Egypt,

“[t]he most significant human rights issues include arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; … disappearance; torture; harsh or potentially life­ threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention … [t]he government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses….⁸

[26]   The Country Reports further points out that “[l]ocal rights organizations documented hundreds of incidents of torture throughout the year, including deaths resulting from torture.⁹ [footnotes omitted]

INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTRNATIVE

[27]   Inasmuch as the Egyptian state, in this case is the agent of persecution, the issue of the availability, or effectiveness of state protection is rendered moot.

[28]   Moreover, the Egyptian state is in effective control of its national territory and there accordingly, can be no internal flight alternative for the claimant anywhere in Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[29]   For the reasons cited above, I concluded that should the claimant return to Egypt, he would face more than a mere possibility of harm for a Convention reason. He is accordingly found to be a Convention refugee and his claim is accepted.

(signed) WILLIAM T. SHORT  

February 4, 2019

¹  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, section 96

² Ibid., section 97(1).

³  Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

⁴ Exhibit 4, Medical Report from XXXX XXXX XXXX, at pp. 17-18.

⁵ Ibid., Record of Arrest, at pp. 32-35.

⁶ Ibid., at pp. 19-30.

⁷ Exhibit 3, National Document Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Item 4.5, s. 3.

⁸ Ibid., Item 2.1, s. Executive Summary.

⁹ Ibid., S. 1.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 164
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 22, 2019
Panel: Tita De Rousseau
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Diana B. Coulthard
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-25327
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000253-000259

REASONS FOR DECISION

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

EXPEDITED PROCESS

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

[3]     In deciding the claim, the panel has considered all of the evidence before it, including the Basis of Claim (BOC) form,³ the referral documents,⁴ the country of origin information contained within the National Documentation Package (NDP)⁵ and the claimant’s documentary evidence.⁶

ALLEGATIONS

[4]     The claimant alleges that he has two somewhat separate reasons to fear persecution in Egypt: first, as a person suspected of being a member of, or being allied with, the banned Muslim Brotherhood (MB); and secondly, as a person pressured by the authorities to spy on colleagues and other persons.

[5]     The claimant alleged that in 2011 while living and working in Cairo, together with his uncle he helped establish a charity to assist the poor. That uncle was already involved in charitable work as part of his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood. The claimant alleges he never joined the Muslim Brotherhood as he tried to avoid political involvement, but together with some of his family members, he distributed goods to the needy with his charitable organization, which was not allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.

[6]     In December 2013, the organization’s premises were raided by the Egyptian National Security (ENS). Both the claimant and his uncle were arrested; the claimant was release in three days, but the uncle was detained for a month. After a subsequent arrest in January 2014, the claimant was ordered to close the charity as the ENS claimed it was a front for political activity.

[7]     The claimant alleges that for the next four years, he continued to be harassed by ENS, detained occasionally and badly treated. He was questioned each time about the Muslim Brotherhood despite his denial of any knowledge of their activities.

[8]     He finally resorted to moving frequently to avoid the ENS harassment, but he was located each time and the detentions and interrogations about the Muslim Brotherhood continued until he left Egypt.

[9]     Starting in XXXX 2016, when the claimant was travelling to Sinai for his employer, he was stopped by the Egyptian Military Intelligence (EMI at a security checkpoint, he believes at the request of ENS. He was pressed to provide information to the authorities about his colleagues in Sinai and about the local people he came in contact with.

[10]   He refused to do so, largely because he feared that as a spy, he would be identified and killed by the locals he was being asked to spy on. His refusal led to detentions and threats that he would be killed if he did not provide information.

[11]   The claimant finally decided to leave Egypt using his own passport and an existing Canadian visa by arranging payment of bribes to authorities.

[12]   He fears he would be detained, tortured and perhaps killed on return to Egypt.

DETERMINATION

[13]   The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, based on his perceived and actual political opinion which is opposed to the current regime’s policies.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[14]   The claimant has established his identity by his passport,⁷ his Egyptian Personal Identity card⁸ and other documentation. 

Credibility 

[15]   When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are indeed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their veracity.⁹ In this case, the claimant’s evidence is internally consistent and consistent with information contained in the NDP.¹⁰ The panel concludes he is generally credible.

Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm

[16]   As noted above, the claimant’s fear of persecution in Egypt arises from two related issues; his perceived connection with the Muslim Brotherhood and his failure to comply with demands from EMI to spy on colleagues and local people in Sinai.

[17]   The claimant alleged that as his uncle was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, he was suspected of associating with the MB as well.

[18]   The charitable organization he established with his uncle for non-political reasons was shut down in January 2014 as the government suspected that such organizations were connected to the Muslim Brotherhood charitable groups. The claimant was detained and interrogated by authorities about the Muslim Brotherhood on many occasions after that, despite his insistence that he was not connected with the group and had no knowledge of their activities.

[19]   The documentary evidence confirms that since 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned along with its associated organizations:

The USSD report covering events in 2016 observed that: ‘The Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party and its NGO remained illegal, and the Muslim Brotherhood was a legally designated terrorist organization.

…According to Amnesty International in their Report 2015-2016: ‘By the end of [2015], the government said it had closed more than 480 non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) because of their alleged links to the MB group.

…The DFAT report state ‘DFAT understands that most, if not all, NGO’s affiliated to the Brotherhood have either been shut down, had their assets seized, and/or had their board replaced with government appointees. ¹¹

[20]   The documents indicate that because the MB was declared a terrorist organization, all its activities were thereby criminalized and many were detained:

Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report for 2017 similarly indicates that civil society organizations “estimate that as many as [40,000] people were being detained for political reasons most of them for real or suspected links to the Muslim Brotherhood.¹²

[21]   Although the claimant’ s organization was not in fact associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, his uncle’s involvement both with the charitable organization and the MB brought the claimant to the attention of the authorities. His testimony that he was arrested, detained and tortured on many occasions indicates that while the authorities likely knew he was not a member of MB, or they would not have released him after the interrogations, he was a person they had targeted for constant surveillance and persecution. His attempts to relocate were unsuccessful and the persecution continued until he left Egypt.

[22]   The claimant alleged that in addition to the continual detentions and interrogations about the MB, starting in 2016, he was pressured by authorities to spy on colleagues in his workplace. The claimant alleged that as part of his employment, he was required to travel on occasion to Sinai, which is an area of ongoing conflict. The claimant refused to cooperate as he feared he would be killed by those persons he was asked to spy on.

[23]   By his refusal, the claimant has made it obvious to the authorities that he does not agree with government actions and policies. He has established that his political opinion is opposed to that of the regime.

[24]   The panel concludes that there is a serious possibility that upon return to Egypt, he would suffer persecution by government authorities for his perceived and real political opinion.

State Protection

[25]   A state, unless in complete breakdown, is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens; international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant cannot obtain protection domestically. However, in this situation, where it is the state itself that is the agent of persecution, there is no state protection available to the claimant.

Internal Flight Alternative

[26]   There is no safe or reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA) location available to this claimant. He has tried to move residences frequently to avoid detection by the authorities, but they located him each time. As it is the authorities themselves the claimant fears and the Egyptian government is control of the entirety of the country, an IFA is not available.

CONCLUSION

[27]   The claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, because of his well-founded fear of persecution for his political opinion. The claim is accepted. 

(signed) TITA DE ROUSSEAU

May 22, 2019

Citation: 2019 RLLR 163
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Mayoori Malankov
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-25293
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000246-000252

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX (the claimant), who is a citizen of Egypt, is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

EXPEDITED PROCESS

[2]       Paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA 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.¹ Further, subsection 162(2) of the IRPA 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. The claimant’s claim was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed certificate of readiness for the expedited process on September 21, 2018.² Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that XXXX XXXX XXXX claim meets the criteria for the expedited determination. This claim has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.³

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimant is a XXXX XXXX XXXX, who was perceived to be a supporter or member of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, he alleges that he has solely represented clients accused of being members, but by association the government believes he is a supporter or member himself. 

[4]       In 2014, he began representing these clients, and in August 2016, there were judgments acquitting his clients, whereupon he began receiving texts warning him to stay away from representing these clients.

[5]       In 2015, the claimant was one of the XXXX involved in the mass trials and prosecution of alleged members and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. This series of cases became a matter of public interest because several of the accused were young, and the stakes were high – some of these charges are punishable by execution. The claimant defended two young men in these afore mentioned cases.

[6]       In XXXX 2017, the claimant went to Turkey for vacation but returned as he did not have any fears at that time. On XXXX XXXX, 2017, the claimant came to Canada to assist a client in Canada, who had property issues in Egypt. While in Canada, he learned that his client’s father had been arrested in Egypt. In July 2017, a second judgment came down acquitting his two clients of most of the charges. Around Mid-August 2017, five armed officers came to the claimant’s home in pursuit of him and looking for documents. They forcibly entered their home and one of them tried to hit his wife in the head with his gun, but it landed on her shoulder. The officers told the claimant’s wife that her husband would be arrested.

[7]       In August/September 2017, authorities searched his office in Egypt. His colleague was arrested. In October 2017, the sister of one of his clients was arrested. On December 05, 2017, the claimant received numerous documents from Egypt to support his claim.

[8]       In October, the claimant learned that he was named as one of the lawyers that was being investigated for assisting cadres of the Brotherhood, and he also learned that a number of other lawyers working on the foregoing cases had been arrested.

DETERMINATION

[9]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10]     The claimant’s identity has been established as per a copy of his passport, his National ID Card, and his birth and marriage certificates.

Credibility

[11]     The claimant has submitted copious corroborative evidence to support his claim. This documentation includes proof of his legal profession as well as his representation of the clients mentioned in his BOC. The supportive evidence also includes the court judgments which favoured the claimant’s clients, minutes of investigations, court orders and lists of individuals indicated in the claimant’s BOC, who are detained. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the aforementioned documents and find that the claimant has provided credible evidence that he was a professional XXXX representing Muslim clients, and as a result, he is perceived to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself.

Prospective Risk of Return to Egypt

[12]     The claimant fears persecution if he returns to his country of nationality, Egypt, because of his political opinions. As explained above, he has been accused of being affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and as such, he is considered a political opponent by the current Egyptian regime.

[13]     The panel finds that the claimant has established a link between his situation and a Convention ground, that is, his political opinions, whether real or imputed.

[14]     In evaluating the claimant’s prospective risk of return, the panel has taken into consideration the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation at this time.

[15]     As explained above, the claimant is a XXXX who has represented clients who have been in the public eye. He has submitted evidence regarding his public personality, his public expressions of his political opinions, and particularly evidence regarding the political nature of his profession. Notably, he has been named by the Egyptian authorities on a list of persons who are accused of being members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[16]     The panel has also taken into consideration the evidence regarding the current situation in Egypt, particularly concerning those perceived as being political opponents to the regime.⁴

[17]     According to the objective evidence, the Egyptian authorities are known for their repression of freedom of expression and association, notably repression of those who are considered political opponents.⁵ The U.S. Department of State reports:⁶

The most significant human rights issues included arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; major terrorist attacks; disappearances; torture; harsh or potentially life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; including the use of military courts to try civilians; political prisoners and detainees; unlawful interference in privacy; limits on freedom of expression, including criminal “defamation of religion” laws; restrictions on the press, internet, and academic freedom; and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and association, including government control over registration and financing of NGOs.

[18]     According to the objective evidence on file, there are numerous reports that the Egyptian forces have used excessive force against activists and opponents, particularly during the demonstrations in 2011 and in 2013. A new wave of arrests began in May 2015. Sources indicate that thousands of people who are perceived as opponents to the current government have been detained for extended periods of time, which, in many cases, could be considered enforced disappearances.⁷

[19]     There are also recent reports that indicate that members of the Egyptian military have committed acts that may amount to human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. The objective evidence on file indicates that family members of perceived opponents were also subjected to these treatments. Finally, reports also indicate that there were problems with impunity for officials who committed abuses and unfairness in the judicial system.⁸

[20]     The panel notes that in this particular case, according to the allegations, which have been deemed credible, the claimant has been accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In consideration of the entirety of the evidence, including the claimant’s public personal profile and his particular situation, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the panel accepts that the claimant may be perceived as a political opponent upon returning to Egypt.

[21]     For all of the reasons explained above, considering the treatment of real or perceived political opponents and dissenters by the Egyptian authorities, as well as the treatment of their family members, the panel concludes that there is a serious possibility that the claimant may face persecution based on a Convention ground, that being his real or perceived political opinion, upon return to his country of nationality, Egypt.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[22]     Case law establishes a presumption that a state is capable of providing adequate protection to its citizens. In order to rebut this presumption, claimants must demonstrate, through clear and convincing evidence, that the authorities are not able or willing to provide them adequate protection given the alleged risks. Claimants must establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution throughout their country of nationality.

[23]     As explained above, the panel has taken into consideration the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation at the present time. Of note, the panel has taken into consideration that the claimant fears the Egyptian authorities. The panel has also taken into consideration that the claimant has been accused of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood by the Egyptian authorities, allegation which he affirms is false, and that the authorities have been actively seeking him.

[24]     As explained above, the panel has taken into consideration the objective evidence regarding the situation in Egypt, particularly regarding the treatment of political opponents and those who are perceived as such. Regarding those considered opponents and dissenters, it is reported:

The authorities used prolonged pre-trial detention, often for periods of more than two years, as means to punish dissidents.⁹

According to the Report of the OHCHR Mission to Egypt in 2011: In addition, strikes, unregistered financial donations were formally banned, and thousands of opponents were arbitrarily detained and allegedly tortured. In fact, the Emergency Law gave the Government the right to detain individuals indefinitely, without any judicial safeguards. ¹⁰

… under repeated international criticism for an ongoing government crackdown against various forms of political dissent and freedom of expression. Certain practices of Sisi’s government, the parliament and the security apparatus have been contentious including … police brutality, the apparently deliberate use of torture by security forces, and reported enforced disappearances of political opponents.¹¹

[25]     As indicated above, there are reports of impunity for officials who committed abuses.

[26]     Upon consideration of the entirety of the evidence, the panel finds that the treatment of political opponents and dissidents, orthose perceived as such, is not limited to any regions in Egypt, but is widespread. The panel notes that the laws currently used to repress political opponents are national laws, and may be applied throughout Egypt.

[27]     Therefore, for all of the reasons explained above, and in consideration of the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation, as well as the current conditions in Egypt, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection is not adequate for the claimant if he were to return to his home country at this time. The panel concludes that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in these particular circumstances.

[28]     Considering his personal profile and current situation, as well as the objective documentation, as noted above, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimant throughout his country at this time. Therefore, a viable internal flight alternative is currently not available for the claimant within Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[29]     Therefore, his claim for refugee protection is accepted on the basis of his perceived political opinion.

(signed)           ROSLYN AHARA

March 1, 2019

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

2 Exhibit 4.

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

4 Exhibit 3, National Documentat

ion Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), items 2.1 and 4.5

5 Ibid., items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.

6 Ibid., item 2.1.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 10.l.

9 Ibid., item 2.2.

10 Ibid., item 2.6.

11 Ibid., item 4.7.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 162
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 25, 2019
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Michael F. Loebach
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-21630
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-21638, TB7-21655, TB7-21656
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000185-000191

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       XXXX XXXX XXXX (the principal claimant, hereinafter referred to as the P.C.), his spouse XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their two minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, all citizens of Egypt, are claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

[2]       The P.C. consented to act as designated representative on behalf of his two minor children.

EXPEDITED PROCESS

[3]       Paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA 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.¹ Further, subsection 162(2) of the IRPA 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. The claimants’ claims were identified as those that could be processed through the RPD expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimants’ signed certificate of readiness for the expedited process on June 22, 2018.² Having carefully considered the evidence in these cases, the panel finds that these claims meet the criteria for the expedited determination. These claims have therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.³

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The claimants’ allegations are described in detail in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC). However, they can be summarized as follows.

[5]       The claimant’s father, wanting to secure the future of his family, sold everything to buy property in February 26, 2013. However, notwithstanding the legal rights and a contract, the Government seized the property and it became the property of the armed forces.

[6]       The P.C. attended many demonstrations beginning in 2011 and continued to do so after the revolution.

[7]       The P.C.’s wife sustained an incident on a bus in March 2016, where the bus driver wanted to charge her more than the regulated price. The police were called and blamed her, not the driver beat her and took off her hijab. She reported the incident to the police, however, they refused to open an investigation.

[8]       In November 2016, the P.C.’s wife went to visit her aunt the children. Unfortunately, the taxi driver was a criminal who kidnaps women and children. They were taken somewhere, and threatened, however, the P.C.’s wife gave him everything they had and they were able to escape on foot.

[9]       On April 15, 2016, the P.C. attended a huge demonstration which took place in several provinces, asking to stop giving up the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. The P.C. also attended the demonstrations that followed the actual waiver of these islands. The security forces came the day before the demonstration; they did not have any documents.

[10]     The Egyptian security arrested a lot of people in many of the provinces and the P.C.’s house was among those where acts of violence took place. They entered the house without permission and broke everything, and stole his children’s tablets with video games. The P.C. believes that a neighbour was an informant.

[11]     The P.C. continued to attend demonstrations demanding in rights and freedom. On June 16, 2017, the armed security forces attacked a demonstration; the P.C. was beaten in the face and abdomen and they tried to take his cellphone. He and others were arrested and detained at the metro station for several hours. A colleague of the P.C. photographed what was happening. The P.C. was detained for one week, where he was tortured, beaten, his cellphone taken and the photographs were deleted. The authorities threatened to imprison the P.C. at any time, and as well they threatened members of his family.

[12]     On August 22, 2017, the P.C. was surprised by a phone call from his neighbour basically warning him to leave. They went into hiding and arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017.

DETERMINATON

[13]     I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.

ANALYSIS

Identifies

[14]     The claimants’ identities have been established as per their passports, birth certificates, National ID Cards, and marriage certificate. 

Credibility

[15]     The claimants have provided proof of their professions, the P.C. as an XXXX and his wife as a XXXX. They have also submitted supporting letters from the P.C.’s mother and a friend, witness declarations, a police report, and proof of land purchase, and a letter from the individual with whom the family hid. The P.C’s wife has provided corroborative evidence of the taxi incident which occurred on the way to her home. The panel finds that this supportive evidence is consistent with the contents of the P.C.’s BOC.

[16]     The claimants have also provided country documentation which is consistent with the Board’s National Documentation Package (NDP), in which it describes, in particular, danger to women and children and those individuals who speak out against the government.

Objective basis/Prospective Risk of Return

[17]     In order to establish their claim as a Convention refugee, the claimants must demonstrate that if they were to return to their home country, they would face a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground.

[18]     The claimants indicate that they fear persecution if they return to their country of nationality, Egypt, because of the P.C.’s opposition to the government and the risk to his wife and children.

[19]     First of all, the panel has taken into consideration the family’s personal profile and the P.C.’s particular situation at this time. The P.C. is a professional who has participated in a number of demonstrations over the years, and has been detained as a result.

[20]     According to the objective evidence, the Egyptian authorities are known for their repression of freedom of expression and association, notably repression of those who are considered political opponents.⁴ The US Department of State reports:⁵

The most significant human rights issues included arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; major terrorist attacks;… arbitrary arrest and detention; including the use of military courts to try civilians; political prisoners and detainees; unlawful interference in privacy; limits on freedom of expression,… restrictions on the press, internet, and academic freedom; and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and association, including government control over registration and financing of NGOs.

[21]     According to the objective evidence on file, there are numerous reports that the Egyptian forces have used excessive force against activists and opponents, particularly during the demonstrations in 2011 and in 2013. Sources indicate that thousands of people who are perceived as opponents to the current government have been detained for extended periods of time, which, in many cases, could be considered enforced disappearances. There are also recent reports that indicate that members of the Egyptian military have committed acts which may amount to human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. The objective evidence on file indicates that family members of perceived opponents were also subjected to this treatment. Finally, reports also indicate that there were problems with impunity for officials who committed abuses and unfairness in the judicial system.⁶

[22]     The panel notes that in this particular case, according to the allegations which have been deemed to be credible, the P.C. has been the victim of aggression and has been arrested and detained on numerous occasions. In consideration of the entirety of the evidence, including the P.C.’s personal profile and his particular situation, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the panel accepts that the P.C. may be perceived as a political opponent upon returning to Egypt.

[23]     Considering the treatment of real or perceived political opponents and dissenters by the Egyptian authorities, the panel concludes that there is a serious possibility that the P.C. may face persecution based on a Convention ground, that being his real or perceived political opinion, upon return to his country of nationality, Egypt.

State Protection

[24]     Claimants must establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the state would be unwilling or unable to provide adequate protection if they were to return to their home country.

[25]     As noted above, the panel has taken into consideration the P.C.’s personal profile and his particular situation at the present time. The panel has taken into consideration that the claimants fears the Egyptian authorities. As explained above, the panel notes that according to the allegations, that the P.C. has been arrested and detained by the Egyptian authorities on numerous occasions, and prior to leaving the country in 2017, state security forces were looking for him.

[26]     More importantly, the P.C. has approached the police on a number of occasions, and they have taken no action whatsoever.

[27]     Therefore, for all of the reasons explained above, and in consideration of the P.C’s personal profile and his particular situation, as well as the current conditions in Egypt, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection is not adequate for the claimants if they were to return to their home country at this time. The panel concludes that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in these particular circumstances.

Internal Flight Alternative

[28]     Claimants must establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution throughout their country of nationality.

[29]     Once again, the panel has considered the family’s particular situation at the present time. As explained above, the panel notes that they fear the Egyptian authorities.

[30]     Furthermore, as explained above, the panel has taken into consideration the objective evidence regarding the current situation in Egypt. Upon consideration of the entirety of the evidence, the panel finds that the treatment of political opponents and dissidents, or those perceived as such, is not limited to any regions in Egypt, but is widespread. The panel notes that the laws currently used to repress political opponents are national laws, and may be applied throughout Egypt.

[31]     For all of the reasons explained above, considering the P.C.’s personal situation, as explained above, the panel finds that the there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants throughout Egypt at this time. Therefore, a viable internal flight alternative is currently not available for the claimants within Egypt.

CONCLUSION

[32]     For all of the reasons explained above, the panel finds that these claimants are Convention refugees.

[33]     Therefore, their claims are accepted.

(signed) ROSLYN AHARA

March 25, 2019

¹ Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.

² Exhibit 7.

³ Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.

⁴ Exhibit 6, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3and 2.4.

⁵ Ibid., item 2.1.

⁶ Ibid., items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, and 10.1.