Category: Egypt

Citation: 2020 RLLR 176
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 4, 2020
Panel: D. Willard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ali Dakakni
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-25377
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000697-000704

DECISION

[1]       MEMBER: So, sir, and Madam, I am ready to give you my decision. I want you to know that it is a split decision, so it is not the same decision for everyone. Okay.

[2]       So, for five of you the decision is a positive decision, but for XXXX is a negative decision. Okay. I am going to … I imagine that your counsel’s probably spoken with you about that already. He’ll probably give you more information after (inaudible), but I do need to give my reason on the record, so I invite you to listen carefully. You don’t have to speak at this time. Okay.

[3]       CLAIMANT: Okay.

[4]       MEMBER: Okay. This is an oral decision in the claim for … claims for refugee protection of the following individuals. I do want to note that this is a split decision, so this initial decision is just for five of you. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the file number is TBS-25377; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TBS-25449; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TBS-25485; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TBS-25486; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the file number is TBS-25487. For these claimants my oral decision is the following:

[5]       I’d like to note that the claimants are seeking protection pursuant to Sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They seek protection here in Canada from their country of citizenship Egypt.

[6]       The basis of their claims for the adult claimants is their anti-government political opinion pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and for the minor claimants it’s their membership in a particular social group as members of their family, their immediate family, pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[7]       I do wish to note that these claims were heard jointly and the male claimant, the principal claimant, was appointed the designated representative for the minor claimants pursuant to Section 167(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. He was also appointed the designated representative for XXXX XXXX XXXX file number TBS-25488 whose decision will follow this decision.

[8]       I do also wish to note that the written version of these reasons will not be edited for spelling, syntax, grammar, nor applicable case law.

[9]       Allegations:

[10]     The details of the claimant’s allegations are found in the male claimant’s Basis of Claim Form at Exhibit 2.1. To summarize, he indicates that he and his spouse are both citizens of Egypt, that they were born there, and that they hold citizenship and permanent … permanent residence in no other country.

[11]     They indicate that they have lived for a number of years in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Specifically, the male claimant indicates that they … that he lived in Saudi Arabia from 2007 to 2010. He indicates that he was in the United Arab Emirates from XXXX 2010 to XXXX 2016, and then again in Saudi Arabia from XXXX 2016 to XXXX 2018. In XXXX 2018 he did return to Egypt and after that in point in time, traveled to the United States with his spouse in XXXX of 2018.

[12]     He indicates that events transpired in Egypt while he was in the United States with his family members, and that he learned that Tweets and social media posts that he had put online and his spouse had put online had come to the authorities attentions, and that they were now threatening him and his spouse. He was warned not to come back to Egypt.

[13]     He considered whether or not to file a claim in the United States, decided not to, that it would not be prudent, and instead entered Canada with his family, crossing an illegal border crossing on XXXX XXXX of 2018, and then filed a claim upon arrival here in Canada.

[14]     The claimant further indicates that one of his children XXXX was born in the United States on a trip that his spouse had taken there. His … two of his other children, one was born in Saudi Arabia, and the other in the United Arab Emirates. So, specifically, XXXX was born in Saudi Arabia and XXXX was Born in the United Arab Emirates.

[15]     The claimants indicate that they fear returning to Egypt and that their lives would be at risk there due to their anti-government political activities. Accordingly, they seek protection here in Canada.

[16]     The Determination:

[17]     After assessing all of the evidence before me, sir and Madam, I determine that you have established your evidence, on a balance of probabilities.

[18]     I find that you have established to the panel’s satisfaction your personal identities, your anti­government political identity and activities. You’ve also established the credibility of your allegations. You’ve given me reasonable explanations with respect to the issues of failure to claim in the United States and re-availment.

[19]     Moreover, I find that you have established the well-foundedness of your fear and that State protection and an internal flight alternative do not exist for you.

[20]     I further find that you have established the countries of reference as Egypt only for yourselves and also, in particular, for XXXX and XXXX who were born in the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

[21]     I’m going to turn to my analysis now.

[22]     First, in relation to your personal identities, I note that you did provide the passports, the Egyptian passports for all of your family members. I note that for XXXX you provided the US passport and I will turn to that in her decision.

[23]     Based on these documents, I find that you have established your personal identities, on a balance of probabilities, as required by Section 106 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and also Rule 11 of the Refugee Protection Division rules. Therefore, I am satisfied with respect to your personal identities, on a balance of probabilities.

[24]     First, in relation to countries of reference, I would like to make a comment on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at this time.

[25]     So, first I do want to acknowledge that I did assess those two countries in terms of the length of your residency in both of those countries. I note that the index of National Documentation Package for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the versions are March 2019, are before the panel at Exhibits 10 and 11.

[26]     So, first in relation to … excuse me … the United Arab Emirates, I’m looking at Item 3.1 from that National Documentation Package and it’s indexed as ARE 103173.E. It indicates very clearly that the United Arab Emirates does not have a system to grant permanent residency rights such as a “green card” in the United States.

[27]     It indicates that an article published by Reuters in the Cairo-based Mist News corroborate that UAE does not have a permanent residency status for foreigners.

It states;

According to the UAE Visa Officer, foreigners can reside in the UAE either on a work permit or residency permit. A work permit is granted to an applicant who has an employment contract with an employer, the residency permit allows dependents of such a worker to reside in the UAE. The Visa Officer stated that these permits are usually valid for two to three years depending on the type of job and are renewable provided the worker continues to be employed. Rights of residency are lost if a person is away from the UAE for more than six months, although he or she can reapply. The Visa Officer stated that birth in the United Arab Emirates does not entitle a child to permanent residency. If the child’s father is a UAE citizen then the child would also become a UAE citizen. If the child’s father is a foreigner, the child would require a UAE … a residency permit.

[28]     Based on this objective documentary evidence, sir and Madam, I find that it is clearly established that you and the children, who were not born in the UAE, would not be entitled to any residency rights.

[29]     I further find that your child XXXX who was born in the UAE is not entitled to citizenship rights, and the UAE is not a country of reference to him based on birth there. Given that you no longer have a work contract there, you have no rights to residency there. I see no perspective status for him in the future in that country.

[30]     Also, further in regard to the UAE and also Saudi Arabia, I note that Item 3.5 from NDP for Saudi Arabia which is also indexed as Item 3.2 in the UAE NDP, this is Item Number ZZZ 104924.E dated August 13th of 2014, it speaks to the situation in Saudi Arabia and the employment visa system there which is very similar in nature and effect as that in the United Arab Emirates.

[31]     I note that Item 3.1 SAU 105183.7 which is dated May 19th of 2015, speaks to those born in Saudi Arabia who are the children of noncitizens of Saudi Arabia. It goes on to describe the rights to education, that there are no rights to education after the age of 18; that the rights are not the same as those of a citizen. Non citizens are not allowed entry into the country after the lapse of the re-entry period visa.

[32]     There is reference to children being permitted to return on a visa, however, it does state that an officer can deny the re-entry for children born in Saudi … born in Saudi who are born to non-citizens of that country. It further states that there is no codified rule of law in the country with respect to visa issuance on re-entry and that it depends on the parent’s political activities abroad.

[33]     Accordingly, I find that there is no clear right to residence nor citizenship rights for XXXX in Saudi Arabia and therefore for both of those children who were born in Saudi Arabia and UAE respectively, I find that the country of reference is Egypt only.

[34]     In terms of the anti-government political identity, sir, for yourself and your spouse and the credibility of your allegations, I saw no material inconsistencies or contradictions in your evidence. You were able to describe, sir, in your oral evidence today that as a political science student from university who has lived outside of Egypt for a number of years and then returned back in XXXX 2018, that you were taken aback by the situation in your country and that you felt compelled to speak out because you worried as a father about the future for your children in Egypt if … if you had to live there on an ongoing basis.

[35] I note, sir, that your statements are consistent with the documentary evidence that you’ve put forward, specifically, in Exhibit 12 the tweets that you spoke about and provided here today, and also they are consistent with the documents that you provided in Exhibit 5 from relatives back home and correspondence with him regarding the situation there.

[36]     I find, sir, that you have established, and, Madam, you that you’ve established your anti­ government political activities, that you have been active on social media, on Facebook and Twitter. had the opportunity to look at the Facebook account that you have, sir, and I find that the evidence corroborates your statements. I find that you’ve established your evidence, on a balance, in this regard and in a credible fashion.

[37]     In terms of your re-availment back to Egypt on several occasions, I note that you testified very clearly today that you became afraid to live in Egypt in September of 2018, while you were in the United States.

[38]     I have no reason to doubt this testimony, sir, therefore I accepted as true, on a balance, and find therefore that your past returns to Egypt are not indicative of a lack of subject fear, as you did not feel at risk at that time. There was no imminent danger that you were facing. Therefore, I find your actions in that respect to be credible and that they do not detract from your subject fear.

[39]     With respect to your failure to claim in United States, I asked you questions about this today, sir, and you explained that you spent a month in the United States between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of 2018, and that you have listened to news reports about the US government’s interactions with the Egyptian government, and your perception of the situation is that the relationship between the Trump administration and the Egyptian authorities is a positive one, and that you don’t feel comfortable with it.

[40]     You also described today, sir, in your statements that you felt that there was an anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. You described incidents of mistreatment of the Muslim population, and you stated that you felt that the current political feeling is such that you would not be accepted in the United States and that you would be deported, and you were afraid for this, and as a result you started to explore means by which you could enter into Canada, and went online and found a way to come in, and you made your claim upon entry.

[41]     I asked you very … very clearly to describe for me or to state for me whether or not you decided that it was better to take the risk of crossing into Canada illegally or filing a claim in the United States, and you stated that, from your perspective, you believed that taking the chance and coming to Canada was a better one.

[42]     I find that there’s insufficient reason for me to doubt the sincerity of your statements, sir. I take that you were approaching the situation from your own understanding and your own perception of the situation.

[43]     I note as well that you do have extended family in Canada, and that you were determined to come and reside with them in Windsor.

[44]     You … one does take a serious risk in entering illegally because that too can lead to results that are negative ones. However, I don’t find that there is sufficient reason for me to find, from your actions with your understanding, your perception, that your actions were indicative of a lack of subjective fear.

[45]     I don’t find that they are indicative of a lack of subject fear. I find, rather, that with your understanding in your personal circumstances that you acted in a reasonable fashion.

[46]     In … with regards to the well-foundedness of your fear, I note, sir, that in the documentary evidence before me at Item at Exhibit 3, the index of National Documentation Package for Egypt, the version is September 30th of 2019, that there are a number of items. For example, Item 2.1 the US Department of State report for Egypt 2018, Item 4.2 the Civic Freedom Monitor for Egypt which is dated 17th of July 2019. Also, Item 4.5 which is indexed as EGY 105804.E June 12th of 2017 which speaks to the treatment of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including suspected members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[47]     All of these documents, sir, speak to a crackdown on freedom of expression. There’s also a crackdown by the government on those who are perceived to be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. In particular, for example, at Item 2.1 there are a number of human rights issues that are highlighted. One of which is restriction on political participation and freedom of expression, including on the Internet.

[48]     Under the section on freedom of expression it states that;

Citizens express their views on a wide range of political and social topics. Nonetheless, the government investigated and prosecuted critics for alleged incitement of violence, insults to religion, insults to public figures and institutions such as the judiciary and the military, or violation of public morals. Individuals also faced societal and official harassment for speech views as sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as using a hand gesture showing four fingers, a reference to the 2013 security operation to disburse the sit-in at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square.

The law provides for a broad definition of terrorism to include any act harming national unity or social peace. The president stated that lying is a form of terrorism. Human rights observers expressed concern that authorities could use the ambiguous definition to stifle nonviolent speech and nonviolent opposition activity.

[49]     On May 11th, authorities arrested XXXX XXXX on charges of abusing a means of communication and publishing a video containing false news after she uploaded a video to her personal Facebook account in which she described her experiences with sexual harassment in the country.

[50]     It also then goes to talk about press and media freedom.

[51]     I find, after reviewing the objective documentary evidence in addition to some of the articles that have been put forward by counsel such as in Exhibit 6, the article from the Washington Post entitled Egypt Jails American Traveller saying she criticized the government on Facebook which is dated August 8th.

[52]     The … there is a great deal of documentation before me which corroborates your fears and provides an objective well-foundedness to the fear that you are experiencing. I therefore find, on a balance, that you have established the well-foundedness of your fear.

[53]     With respect to State protection and an internal flight alternative, given that it is the authorities themselves you fear who would be the agents of persecution and given the documentary evidence that I’ve just cited, I find that you have rebutted the presumption of State protection and demonstrated that operationally adequate State protection would not be forthcoming to you in your circumstances, as it is the State themselves who are the persecutors.

[54]     In terms of an internal flight alternative, as it is again the State themselves who are the agents of persecution, there would no … there would not be a reasonable alternative location for you to live in safely as the same risk would be present for you throughout the country. Therefore, I find that the availability of a viable internal flight alternative is not present and would fail on the first prong of the test.

[55]     In conclusion I determine that the five of you XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXare all Convention refugees. I determine that for the adult claimants. For you it is your anti-government political opinion and for those minor claimants their membership in a particular social group.

[56]     You have met the requirements of Section 96 of the IRPA. I therefore accept your claims.

[57]     Now, in relation to the final claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX, the file number for her is TBS- 25488, I note that from the documentary evidence in Exhibit 1 the copy of her passport that is before me that she is a US citizen. Therefore, her personal identity is established, on a balance of probabilities, based on her passport.

[58]     At the outset of the hearing, sir, I did ask your counsel whether there were any allegations being put forward with respect to the United States or any submissions that he had to offer. He clearly stated that there are not. When I asked you, sir, you did point to your fear that if you were in the United States with your minor daughter XXXX, that you could potentially be separated as you had heard had occurred with migrants who were coming from Mexico.

[59]     I … I note that this is a fear that you carry, sir, but for her independently I find that you have not put forward any allegations of risk that would meet the requirements of either Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or Section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[60]     I find that the United States is a country that has a State protection mechanism that is functioning. It is a democratic country, and overall, sir, I find that there are no grounds for the granting of refugee protection under either Section 96 or 97(1).

[61]     Accordingly, I find that for her as a citizen of the United States that she has not made out a claim on either of those grounds. Accordingly, I therefore do refuse her petition for refugee status and find that she is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, and those are my reasons for her.

[62]     Thank you both. Thank you, counsel, and, Mr. Interpreter.

[63]     COUNSEL: Thank you, Madam.

[64]     MEMBER: Thank you. We’re concluded.

———- REASONS CONCLUDED ———-

Citation: 2020 RLLR 175
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 7, 2020
Panel: C. Ruthven
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Amro Hayek
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-18214
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-18276, TB8-18298, TB8-18299, TB8-18300
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000638-000648

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 XXXX (elder female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (younger female claimant), XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (elder minor claimant), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (younger minor 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 the two minor claimants.

ALLEGATIONS

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

[5]        The nephew of the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was arrested by the security forces of Egypt on December 14, 2015. On September 6, 2016, the principal claimant’s nephew was subsequently convicted of an affiliation with a terrorist organization, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

[6]        On May 15, 2017, the principal claimant and his sister, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, visited prisoner XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in Assiut province. The principal claimant and his sister travelled on a lengthy train trip from Cairo to Assiut province. The principal claimant was waiting in the visitor’s hall of the prison, when a security officer directed him and other selected men to an interrogation room. These segregated men complied with requests to answer enhanced security questions, but the principal claimant began to challenge the nature of the questions, in the context of the men being simply visitors to the prison.

[7]        The other male visitors were dismissed from the segregated room, but the principal claimant was asked by the security officer about his associations with ISIS (full name variations include Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham,⁵ and Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).⁶ The principal claimant was also asked about his personal knowledge of opposition leaders, as well as the reasons that he recently visited Turkey. After these additional questions were answered, the security officer threatened the claimant by telling him that they would not leave him alone.

[8]        On July 18, 2017, the principal claimant was arrested by security forces, outside his workplace. He was isolated in a dark room for five days, and he was physically assaulted and psychologically traumatized. During this detention, the principal claimant was accused of being a member of banned political organizations. Eight days after his release from his first period of detention, the principal claimant was told that he was terminated from his employment, but that his employer would allow him to finish some company projects from home.

[9]        The principal claimant was detained by security forces on a second occasion, between January 23, 2018 and January 26, 2018. The interrogation topics centred around the places that the principal claimant attended in the week prior to his arrest. The principal claimant was arrested for a third time on May 13, 2018. He was interrogated for three days, before being released a far distance away, two hours from his residence by car.

[10]      The claimants departed Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, and entered Canada on the same date. After his departure, the principal claimant was told by an acquaintance that he was wanted for arrest again, related to national security surrounding the annual anniversary celebrations of the June 30th Revolution.

[11]      The claimants made their claims for protection the following month. An arrest warrant was subsequently issued for the principal claimant on September 26, 2018.

DETERMINATION

[12]      The panel finds that the principal claimant is a Convention refugee, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, based on his imputed anti-government political opinion.

[13]      In addition, the panel finds that the elder female claimant, the younger female claimant, and both minor claimants 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 as family members of the principal claimant (who faces a serious possibility of persecution in Egypt).

ANALYSIS

Identity

[14]      The panel finds that all five claimants have established their identity as nationals of Egypt, based on a balance of probabilities. All five claimants presented their valid Arab Republic of Egypt passports.⁷ The panel finds no reason to doubt the authenticity of any of these five documents.

Credibility

[15]      The panel finds that all three adult claimants testified in a straightforward and consistent manner, without the use of embellishments or contradictions.

[16]      The panel finds that the principal claimant was able to coherently describe in his testimony the events that took place on May 15, 2017, at the prison in Assiut province. In regards to a forward-looking assessment of risk for the principal claimant, the panel considered the combination of this May 15, 2017 prison visit (to see a family member convicted of terrorism association eight months prior), in conjunction with the overt engagement of the principal claimant with the authorities on the same date, all in the presence of unrelated prison visitors.

[17]      The panel also finds that the principal claimant was able to clearly articulate his physical and psychological treatment during the three subsequent detentions by security forces in Egypt, between the period of July 18, 2017 and May 16, 2018. These details added to the probative value of the principal claimant’s testimony. 

Subjective Fear Considerations

[18]      The panel considered the time period that elapsed between the release of the principal claimant on January 26, 2018 (after his second arrest) and XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 (the departure date of the claimants from Egypt). The panel elicited testimony from the principal claimant regarding this period of four months, which immediately followed his second period of detention. The principal claimant testified that his second arrest was one of many arrests in the country at the time, and that he did not tell his family about his problems when he relocated to the residence of his mother-in-law for Ramadan observance.

[19]      In consideration of the totality of the circumstances facing the principal claimant, the panel accepts the explanations provided within his testimony regarding the time he spent in Egypt before his departure from his country of citizenship. As such, the panel does not draw a negative credibility inference related to the actions of the principal claimant during this period of time.

Corroborating Documents

[20]      In support of all five claims, the claimants presented the National Security officer’s December 14, 2015 summary,⁸ the September 6, 2016 criminal court documents (related to the conviction of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX),⁹ and the September 26, 2018 Cairn Security Directorate arrest warrant for the principal claimant.¹⁰ In addition to these documents sourced to the authorities of Egypt, the claimants also presented a December 6, 2019 letter of support which was signed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.¹¹

[21]      Based on the above considerations, that panel finds that the evidence sourced to the authorities of Egypt pointed to the security apparatus having interest in the principal claimant, and by extension the two female claimants and the two minor claimants, based on their close family association with the principal claimant (his wife, his adult daughter, and his minor sons).

[22]      The objective country condition evidence supports that the security forces of Egypt would be interested in the family members of the principal claimant, as their treatment of the principal claimant himself (during his three detentions) indicate that the security forces perceive the principal claimant to be active in at least one of the banned political organizations in Egypt, or a government critic, or both.

Objective Basis of the Claims

[23]      The overall objective evidence supports the respective claims for Convention refugee protection which were put forth by the principal claimant, the elder female claimant, the younger female claimant, and the two minor claimants, based on the imputed anti-government political opinion of the principal claimant.

Treatment of Those Who Are Perceived to be Political Opposition

[24]      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. 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.¹²

[25]      The panel considered this country condition evidence in the context of the principal claimant being a perceived government critic, especially due to the events in Assiut province on May 15, 2017.

[26]      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.¹³ Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment.¹⁴

[27]      There were reports of physical assaults on members of political opposition movements.¹⁵ The government of Egypt makes it nearly impossible for the opposition to gain power through elections. In practice, there are no political parties that offer meaningful opposition to the ruling party. Arrests, harsh prison terms, death sentences, extrajudicial violence, and various forms of pressure targeting activists, parties, and political movements that criticize the government were common.¹⁶

[28]      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 the two largest cities of Egypt, Cairo and Alexandria.¹⁷ 

[29]      The panel finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the actions of the principal claimant in Egypt have drawn the attention of the authorities. Since the country condition evidence also establishes that family members of those perceived to be anti-government are also targeted in Egypt, the panel finds that the principal claimant, the elder female claimant, the younger female claimant, and the two minor claimants have each established a well-founded fear of returning to Egypt.

State Protection

[30]      All five claimants fear the authorities and security apparatus of Egypt.

Risk of Harm from the Authorities

[31]      The National Security Agency continued to operate with near-absolute impunity. Security forces in Egypt have escalated a campaign of intimidation, violence, and arrests against political opponents, civil society activists, and many others who have simply voiced mild criticism of the government.¹⁸

[32]      Protesters have been subjected to various kinds of state-sponsored violence in Egypt, including long provisional detention.¹⁹ 

[33]      The Interior Ministry’s regular police and its National Security Agency have used widespread arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and torture against perceived dissidents. Former detainees in Egypt indicated that their arrests typically took place with a dawn raid on their home, or a targeted arrest from the street near a place they were known to frequent, such as their home, university, or place of work. In none of the documented cases did police or National Security officers show suspects a warrant, or tell them why they were being arrested. In some cases, they arrested family members at the same time. Three former detainees told Human Rights Watch that security officers threatened to torture their family members if they did not confess.²⁰  

[34]      Based on this evidence of arbitrary arrest of family members, as well as multiple threats made towards family members of detainees, the panel finds it unreasonable to expect any of the three adult claimants or the two minor claimants to seek redress or protection from the police or from any other authorities in Egypt. The panel finds that adequate state protection would not be forthcoming for any of the five claimants, in their respective particular set of circumstances.

[35]      For clarification, the panel finds that the authorities would on a balance of probabilities, be the primary agents of persecution for the principal claimant, and by extension the two female claimants, and the two minor claimants. The panel finds that the documentary evidence is both clear and convincing, and that it rebuts the presumption of adequate state protection for all five claimants in Egypt.

Internal Flight Alternatives

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

[37]      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 five claimants in any place in Egypt, as the state and its National Security Agency are their agents of persecution.

[38]      The panel finds that the five 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

[39]      The panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the principal claimant, the two female claimants, and the two minor claimants each face persecution in Egypt. The panel concludes that they are each Convention refugees, pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[40]      The panel therefore accepts all five claims.

(signed)            C. RUTHVEN

February 7, 2020

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.

5 Exhibit 7, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.3.

6 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 9.5 and item 12.6.

7 Exhibit 1.

8 Exhibit 14.

9 Exhibit 14.

10 Exhibit 13.

11 Exhibit 13.

12 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.6 and item 4.5.

13 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September2019), item 1.4.

14 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.5, item 2.4, and item 2.9.

15 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 2.1.

16 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 2.4.

17 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 1.3, item 7.1, and item 7.5.

18 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 2.3.

19 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 4.8.

20 Exhibit 7, NDP for Egypt (30 September 2019), item 10.1.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 174
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 23, 2020
Panel: Keith Brennenstuhl
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Kaminker A. Hart
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-02758
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000384-000390

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

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

[2]       The Minister’s representative from Canada Border Service Agency (the Minister) intervened by way of documents only for the purpose of credibility and program integrity. I carefully considered the Minister’s written submissions in rendering my decision. I must clarify one point however, in her submissions, the Minister claimed that “[t]he claimant declared that the entire content of the Basis of Claim (BOC) and attached documents were interpreted to him and that the information he provided was complete true and correct.”² and in fact he did not make such a declaration. The claimant is fluent in English and in his BOC declared that he is able to read English, and that he fully understood the entire content of the form and all attached documents. The BOC was never interpreted to him.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       The claimant’s allegations are described in detail in his BOC.³ They can be summarized as follows.

[4]       In June 2010, when Mubarak was still the president of Egypt, Khaled Said was brutally killed in police custody sparking outrage in the country and prompting the “We are all Khaled Said” movement. At this point the claimant joined Kefaya (the Egyptian Movement for Change). Kefaya began speaking out against corruption of the police and the passing of the presidency to the son of Mubarak.

[5]       Kefaya and others called for a peaceful protest on January 25, 2011. By the end of the day thousands of people had joined the protest, and for the next eighteen days the protesters demanded that Mubarak leave. On January 28, 2011, classified as “Black Friday” by the media, the police moved in on the protesters and many protesters were killed as the police were using rubber bullets and normal bullets to quell the crowds. The claimant’s friend was killed and another friend lost both eyes from rubber bullets. The claimant was hurt from the pushing and pulling of the protesters. Mubarak stood aside as president and the army took control of the country.

[6]       In 2012, a democratic election was held and Morsi for whom the claimant voted, came to power as president.

[7]       From September 2012 until May 2016, the claimant did gXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX He returned to Egypt in XXXX 2016 to commence work. While he was in Canada, Morsi was deposed and Abdel Fattah El Sisi came to power with the backing and support of the military. He brutally repressed any dissent against him, jailing thousands of people he saw as opponents.

[8]       On returning to Egypt the claimant met with Kefaya friends and they discussed the disappearance of their friends.

[9]       On January 25, 2017, the claimant was arrested at a celebration on Kasr Al Nile Bridge where there was a celebration of the sixth anniversary of the 2011 revolution. He was detained for forty-two days during which he was interrogated and tortured. He was accused of being involved in illegal activities and told never to get involved in these things again. He was accused of being Sufi and told that it would be held against him. He was never charged.

[10]     On June 21, 2017, the claimant was once again arrested. He was taken to the Heliopolis Psychiatric hospital where he was confined for fifty days. He was drugged and subjected to electric waves to his brain. On his release he was told that he was better and therefore could leave.

[11]     He applied for a Temporary Resident Visa for Canada in August 2017, arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX2017, and made his refugee claim in February, 2018.

DETERMINATION

[12]     I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a serious possibility of persecution should he return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96 of the IRPA.⁴

ANALYSIS

Identity

[13]     I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt is established by the documents provided including his National Identity Card and a certified true copy of his Egyptian passport.⁵

Nexus

[14]     I find that he has established a nexus to section 96 of the IRPA by reason of political opinion, real and perceived.⁶

Credibility

[15]     I find the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore, I believe what he has alleged in support of his claim. He testified in a straightforward manner and, there were no relevant inconsistencies in his testimony, or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me which have not been satisfactorily explained. The claimant submitted a letter from his mother that corroborates his detention in prison for forty-two days and his detention in the Heliopolis Psychiatric hospital for fifty days, as well as a letter from his friend in Egypt confirming the claimant’s active membership in Kefaya.⁷ I have no reason to discount these documents.

[16]     The claimant also submitted country condition documents similar to reports found in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt.⁸

[17]     The Minister expressed concern that the claimant at his refugee intake interview, declared that he had never been refused a visa to Canada or any other country, whereas the Biometrics from the United States (U.S.) reported that the claimant actually applied for two non-immigrant visas for the U.S. and was refused in 2013 and 2014. At the hearing the claimant explained that he had completely forgotten about the applications, and that at the time he was a student at XXXX XXXX and wanted to visit the U.S., but was refused visas because of his lack of finances. In my view, this is a reasonable explanation for his failure to declare the visa applications. In any event, I do not find that this impugns the claimant’s overall credibility.

[18]     The Minister indicates that the claimant had been in Canada for a lengthy period and was aware of the chaos that was occurring in his country, but yet chose to go back to Egypt in XXXX 2016. The Minister contends that he re-availed himself to his country knowing that his friends had been in danger and he too could be part of the arrests. According to the claimant he left Canada when he did, because his job placement had ended and his visa was about to expire. He added that up to that point intime, he had never been harassed by the Egyptian authorities due to his anti­regime sentiments so he had no subjective fear of returning to Egypt to start work. I find this explanation reasonable. In my view the claimant did not, under these circumstance, re-avail.

[19]     The Minister points out that the claimant applied for and received a Temporary Resident Visa for Canada in August 2017, and that he only came to Canada in XXXX 2017, and subsequently made a refugee claim in Canada in February 2018. “The Minister contends that his delay in leaving Egypt and a delay in making his refugee claim in Canada show that there are many questions to his credibility and veracity of his claim.”⁹ The claimant explained that his delay in leaving Egypt was directly related to his need to raise fonds for his flight to Canada and to support himself in Canada. He did this by selling his inheritance, a piece of land given to him by his father. This, he explained, took time and was the primary factor for his delay in leaving Egypt. As for his delay in Canada in making his refugee claim, I would note that the claimant came to Canada on a valid Temporary Resident visa, and given the visa, there was little risk that the claimant would have been removed to Egypt, by the Canadian authorities at any point prior to making his claim in February 2018. Given these circumstances, I do not draw a negative inference from the delay in making his claim

Objective basis of future risk

[20]     In consideration of the entirety of the evidence including the claimant’s personal profile and his particular situation, I accept that the claimant will be perceived as a political opponent upon return to Egypt. As such, and based on the documentary evidence set out below, I find that the claimant has established a future risk that he will be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention, beating, torture, and enforced disappearance at the hands of the government or its agents if he were to return to Egypt.

[21]     The fact that he faces this risk is corroborated by the NDP for Egypt (version September 30, 2019). According to this 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. There are numerous reports regarding political opponents that indicate the members of the Egyptian military have committed acts which amount to human rights violations including arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killing.¹⁰

Nature of the harm

[22]     This harm, in my view, clearly amounts to persecution.

State protection

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

Internal flight alternative

[24]     I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimant. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt given the objective evidence that the Egyptian authorities operate similarly throughout the country. Therefore, viable internal flight alternatives are not available to this claimant.

CONCLUSION

[25]     Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimant is a Convention refugee. Accordingly, I accept his claim.

(signed)           KEITH BRENNENSTUHL

January 23, 2020

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

2 Exhibit 5, Notice of Intent to Intervene.

3 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) form.

4 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, section 96.

5 Exhibit 4, Claimant disclosure documents, pp. 1-4; Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.

6 IRPA, supra, footnote 1, section 96.

7 Exhibit 4, Claimant disclosure documents.

8 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (September 30, 2019).

9 Exhibit 5, Notice of Intent to Intervene.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP for Egypt (September 30, 2019), items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 173
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 2, 2020
Panel: Veda Rangan
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ameena Sultan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-01296
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-01343, TB8-01358, TB8-01359, TB8-01360
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000302 – 000

REASONS FOR DECISION  

[1]       The principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are citizens of Egypt and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).¹

[2]       Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules,² the claims for refugee protection were heard jointly. The minor claimants all relied on the Basis of Claim (BOC) narrative of the principal claimant. The principal claimant was appointed as the Designated Representative for his two children, according to subsection 167(2) of the IRPA.

MINISTER’S INTERVENTION

[3]       In a letter dated April 9, 2018 the Minister notes pursuant to paragraph 170(e) of the IRPA, and according to section 29 of the RPD Rules, the Minister informed the Refugee Protection Division that he wishes to intervene in this claim by making observations and submitting evidence.³

[4]       In his evidence he states that the principal claimant submitted a Canada Visitor’s Visa (CVV) application that was received on June 28, 2017. This application was approved and a multiple entry visa was issued on July 16, 2017. His spouse and the three children’s application were received on August 14, 2017 and they were approved for multiple entry visitor’s visa issued on October 19, 2017. The claimants entered Canada On XXXX XXXX, 2017.⁴

[5]       Minister also submitted documents (Exhibits M-3 to M-5) regarding finger print analysis, biometric information, confirmation that the principal claimant was finger printed on March 21, 2017 in Dar Es Salaam, and a United States (US) multiple entry visa issued on March 22, 2017. The Minister’s information provided similar information for the female claimant. Exhibit M-4 has the biometric information for the female claimant, XXXX XXXX, confirmation that she was finger printed on June 20, 2017 in Dar Es Salaam, and issued a multiple entry visa on June 21, 2017, and in Exhibit M-5 there is the finger print comparison for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which was done on July 31, 2017.

Minister’s Submissions

[6]       The Minister submits the principal claimant was in possession of a US visa in March 2017, but made no effort to enter the US and initiate a claim for refugee protection, despite the fact that he has shown a past willingness to separate from his family temporarily in order to flee persecution. His wife submitted her US visa application in June 2017 and his daughter submitted the US visa application in July 2017. The principal claimant’s Canadian visitor’s visa (CVV) was issued ahead of the rest of the family.

[7]       The Minister submits that the claimants appear to have selected Canada specifically and have not behaved in a manner that those fearing persecution would. They have also shown a lack of urgency in initiating a claim for protection since they initially fled from Egypt, and the principal claimant has shown a lack of urgency in using the US and Canada visa’s that were at his disposal.

[8]       For these reasons the Minister concludes that the claimants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

Counsel’s reply to Minister’s submission

[9]       Counsel submits that as per the claimant’s testimony, the claimant had applied for a US visa for business purposes. At the time of the application for this visa, he had no problem in Tanzania. His wife later decided to join him, and celebrate their wedding anniversary in the US. The children’s visa was rejected and she had planned to leave the children with the grandparents. However, while in Tanzania, they heard that the female claimant’s brother and the claimant’s friend had been arrested. In addition, the children had problems in Egypt from the perpetrator and they stopped going to school. The family joined the principal claimant in Tanzania as it was not safe for them to live in Egypt. When the children’s visa to the US was rejected, and the claimant’s continued stay in Tanzania became difficult, they decided to leave Tanzania for a safe haven. However, since the children were minors at that time, they had to find a place where all of them could go. Their visa’s to Canada was approved and so they travelled to Canada.

[10]     Although the claimant had a CVV earlier, the female claimant received hers in October 2017. The principal claimant had to wind down his business, conclude some urgent legal matters regarding his taxes and business, and departed from Tanzania in December.

[11]     Counsel submits that delay should not undermine subjective fear. She concludes that the claimants had valid reason for not seeking asylum in the US and a valid reason for not leaving earlier than XXXX 2017.

Panel’s response to Minister’s intervention

[12]     The Minister submits that the claimants are not Convention refugees because the claimants appear to have selected Canada specifically and have not behaved in a manner that those fearing persecution would. In addition, they have also shown a lack of urgency in initiating a claim for protection since they initially fled Egypt and the principal claimant has shown lack of urgency in using the US and Canadian visa’s that were at his disposal.

[13]     I questioned the claimant at length in regards to this matter. The principal claimant testified that he had applied for the US visa for business purposes only because at the time of his application he had no problem in Tanzania. Later, when his wife joined him in Tanzania she decided to join him on his trip to the US so they could celebrate their wedding anniversary together. The children’s US visa applications were rejected. She had planned to send the children to Egypt for a short stay with her parents. They had also planned to visit Canada, and hence the application for a CVV.

[14]     During this time the principal claimant tried to get citizenship in Tanzania as he had established a successful business there. This application was rejected. The visit by the President of Egypt to Tanzania and the proposal for a treaty regarding the extradition of people who were opposed to the Egyptian government, was another problem for the claimants. The principal claimant testified that he would be unable to return to Egypt, and would also be unable to stay in Tanzania.

[15]     The family did not have a US visa for the children and they were too young to be left behind with relatives that were also potential targets. At the time the principal claimant travelled to Tanzania, the female claimant and children had stayed behind in Egypt. However, they were targeted and the female claimant resigned from her job and the children stayed back at home from school.

[16]     The peace and quite they enjoyed in Tanzania came to an end due to a political situation after the Egyptian President’s visit. The reason for the Minister’s intervention is that the claimant did not avail the US visa to leave Tanzania and delayed in leaving Tanzania for Canada.

[17]     Delay has been recognized by the Federal Court as an important factor in assessing a claimant’s credibility and their subjective fear. It is reasonable to assume that persons with a well-founded fear of persecution will attempt to leave the country of persecution and seek refuge without unreasonable delay. The delay in this matter is not substantial. The principal claimant could not leave without his family. They were all potential targets. Even if the principal claimant had left earlier, the rest of his family could not stay in Tanzania for reasons explained above, and would not be able to return to Egypt. The family had their Canadian visa in October 2017.

[18]     The delay in leaving the country does not undermine the principal claimant’s credibility and the allegation that he faces serious harm in Egypt if he and his family were to return.

[19]     I accept the credible testimony of the claimant for delay in leaving Tanzania, 2 months after his family got the visa, and for not travelling to the US to make a claim to be reasonable. This aspect of the claim will not impact on my decision regarding their fear of harm in Egypt.

ALLEGATIONS

[20]     In his Basis of Claim (BOC) Form,⁵ the principal claimant states that on March 22, 2014, when the army seized power and detained the elected President Mohammed Morsi, the claimant was arrested because of his affiliation with the Freedom and Justice Party. They raided his house, confiscated his cell phone, passport and other important documents. He was detained on October 6, in a detention centre for four days. After further investigation by the public prosecutor he was sentenced to nine months of incarceration from March 22, 2014 to December 14, 2014.

[21]     On his release from prison, the claimant went to live in another part of town. Although he continued to be fearful of the government, he started his business. The claimant did this because he wanted to live in his own country and be close to his parents. He avoided any encounter with the security forces and when his friend was arrested, and his old house was stormed and raided, he left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. In his BOC he states that, “they keep chasing me to arrest me.”⁶

[22]     The principal claimant went to Uganda and stayed there until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016, after which he went to Tanzania and stayed there until XXXX XXXX, 2016. He then travelled from the transit city, Addis Ababa, and went to Nigeria where he lived until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2016. As life was very hard there, he returned to Tanzania on XXXX XXXX, 2016 and stayed there with his family until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. During his stay in Tanzania, he had established a business and travelled extensively to conduct his business.

[23]     While he was in Tanzania, his wife was followed to her school where she taught by strangers and the children became potential targets. It has to be noted that the female claimant was also active in the Freedom Justice Party which is the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood party.

[24]     The principal claimant testified that he left Tanzania for several reasons such as he was unable to get passports for his children. The officials at the Egyptian Embassy refused to renew their passports and told them to go back to Egypt to do it. In addition, the President of Egypt had proposed an extradition treaty with Tanzania, which would allow Tanzania to return individuals to their country of origin, in this case Egypt, who have opposed the regime. The Egyptian parliament was also allowed to revoke the citizenship of those opposing the government and living abroad.

[25]     The female claimant had moved to a different residence when a security agent came to her school and tried to get the address of her home.

[26]     The principal claimant participated in political activities from his under graduate university days. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood and was also head of the cultural committee in the student union. He helped organise the demonstrations and had been arrested twice in 1995. In April 2011, the principal claimant and his wife joined the Freedom and Justice party and participated actively in the elections. When President Morsi was arrested, a year after being elected, the principal claimant joined the protest. He was arrested at his home and was imprisoned. Later on, December 14, 2014 he was found not guilty and released.

DETERMINATION

[27]     I find the principal claimant to be a Convention refugee, and fears persecution by reason of political opinion and his wife, the female claimant, and the children to be Convention refugees by reason of their membership in a particular social group-family.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[28]     The principal claimant’s identity and his family’s identities as nationals of Egypt is established by their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, which include certified true copies of their seized Egyptian passports.⁷

Credibility

[29]     The claimants both testified and rendered a very credible testimony. There were no relevant inconsistencies in their testimony, or contradictions between their testimony and the other evidence before the panel. They testified in a very straightforward manner and gave direct, spontaneous answers. The principal claimant provided lots of details that gave credence and life to his story. At the same time, he never tried to embellish it. He was able to detail and corroborate through his oral testimonies the written story in his BOC. Considering all of the above, I believe what he has alleged in support of his claim.

[30]     In addition to their oral testimonies, they have also provided numerous exhibits; his employment, the verdict at the 6^th October Court, photographs regarding the raid at the female claimant’s apartment, and pictures of the protest.⁸

OBJECTIVE BASIS

[31]     Claimant’s allegations are also corroborated by the objective evidence. This document states that there is a widespread political repression in Egypt for opponents of the regime, and even more so for the Muslim Brotherhood and the members of its affiliated party: The Freedom and Justice Party. Indeed, according to tab 2.1 of the National Documentation Package (NDP), the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Freedom and Justice Party, are organizations deemed illegal. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood is legally designated as a terrorist group by the Egyptian State.⁹

[32]     According to tab 4.5 of the NDP, since Morsi’s destitution, Muslim Brotherhood members have been prosecuted on a large scale during collective trials, yielding hundreds of death sentences and approximately 40,000 people have been detained on political grounds. Most of them because of real or perceived affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. There are also violent assaults as well as forced disappearances, towards Muslim Brotherhood members.¹⁰

[33]     In the NDP it states:

 [t]he Guardian reports that on 23 September 2013, Egyptian authorities banned the Muslim Brotherhood and “a court ordered the freezing of all assets and also banned its spin-off groups.” Similarly, according to a document posted on the website of Egypt’s State Information Service, “a Cairn court for urgent matters banned all the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated bodies” and “ordered freezing all the assets and funds of the group.” A December 2013 Associated Press (AP) article reported that Egypt’s government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, thereby “criminalising all its activities, its financing and even membership to the group.” Media sources further report that the Freedom and Justice Party, the Brotherhood’s political wing, was dissolved by a court on 9 August 2014.¹¹

[34]     The same document refers to the treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood Leaders.

Treatment of Muslim Brotherhood Leaders

Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2017 report states that “[l]arge numbers of Muslim Brotherhood members and supporters, including nearly all of the organization’s senior leadership and [Mohammed] Morsi himself, were arrested following the coup, and arrests continued through 2016.”¹²

[35]     The document on Treatment of Muslim Brotherhood’s Members and Suspected Members states there were mass trials and arrests. I quote the document here:

3.1 Mass trials

Al Jazeera reports that since the overthrow of Morsi, “hundreds 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.” Middle East Eye, an “online news organisation” focused on the Middle East similarly indicates that “[s]ince the army deposed Morsi … hundreds of [Morsi’s] supporters have been sentenced to death.”¹³

3.3 Arrests

A February 2017 Reuters article states that “[h]uman rights groups estimate [that] about 40,000 people have been detained for political reasons” since Morsi was deposed. Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report for 2017 similarly indicates that civil society organizations “estimate that as many as [40,000] people were being detained for political reasons as of 2016, most of them for real or suspected links to the Muslim Brotherhood.”¹⁴

[36]     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.

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

[h]uman rights issues included unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government or its agents and terrorist groups; forced disappearances; torture; arbitrary detention; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; … [t]he government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses… ¹⁵

[38]     The Country Reports further points out that, “[l]ocal rights organizations reported hundreds of incidents of torture throughout the year, including deaths resulting from torture.¹⁶

[39]     Considering all of the above, I believe that the claimant has been involved in protests in Egypt against the authorities. This has profiled him as an opponent of the Egyptian regime, and as a result, the claimant had undergone interrogation and threats regarding his political involvement. The claimant has been involved in political activities during his undergraduate days and this continued even after he completed his education. As such, he would be seen as a political opponent of the regime should he return to Egypt. And, considering the evidence above, his whole family, would face a serious possibility of persecution on those grounds.

State protection

[40]     Considering the evidence mentioned above, and that the State is the agent of persecution in this case, there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the State is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant’s with adequate protection.

Internal flight alternative (IFA)

[41]     On the evidence before me and mentioned above, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants throughout Egypt. As such, there is viable interna! flight alternative.

CONCLUSION

[42]     For the reasons cited above, I conclude 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. I also conclude, based on the above analysis, that the female claimant and their three children are Convention refugees on the basis of their membership in a particular social group – family.

(signed) VEDA RANGAN

March 2, 2020          

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

2 Refugee Protection Division (RPD) Rules, SOR/2012-256, Rule 55.

3 Exhibit 5, Notice of Intent to Intervene.

4 Ibid.

5 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim (BOC) Form.

6 Ibid.

7 Exhibit 1 and 9.

8 Exhibit 9, Personal Documentation.

9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (September 30, 2019) item 2.1 at p. 31.

10 Ibid., item 4.5 at pp. 12-13.

11 Ibid., at p. 2.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid., at p. 7.

14 Ibid., at p. 12.

15 Ibid., item 2.1, Executive Summary.

16 Ibid., at p. 6.

Citation: 2020 RLLR 62
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 5, 2020
Panel: Isis Marianne van Loon
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Thaer Abuelhaija
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB9-06930
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-00800
ATIP Pages: 000011-000019

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

[1]       [XXX] (the “claimant”) seeks refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).^[1]

Possible Exclusion

[2]       The Minister was notified on August 5, 2020 of a possible Article 1F exclusion issue, based on the claimant’s disclosure of Egyptian court documents listing him as a terrorist. The Minister declined to intervene. The claimant could be excluded under either Article 1F(a) or Article 1F(c) if he committed crimes of terrorism or was complicit in crimes of terrorism.

[3]       The claimant provided an Egyptian government court decree and orders, issued December 10, 2017 and April 26, 2018, in which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is listed as a terrorist organization and he is listed, among many other people, by name as a terrorist (Exhibit 4). While there are many allegations made by the government against the people named on this list, including references to terrorist schemes, there is no evidence to support the conclusion of the court on whatever evidence it may have collected.

[4]       I considered the claimants credibility, discussed later in my analysis, and found him to be a credible witness. He denied any involvement with the MB or any other terrorist organization. He testified that “I wasn’t a member of any of the MB nor any other organization, however, I was happy with the change” and explained that he supported people who he believed were good candidates. The claimant testified that he did not contribute financially either to the revolution or to the MB.

[5]       The claimant also stated that anybody who supported the revolution was considered a terrorist by the current government. Objective country documentary evidence supports his statement. According to National Documentation Package (NDP) 2.7^[2]  the government has repressed a “wide range of Egyptians whose complicity in terrorist activities is highly questionable”. The state’s war on terror has “largely been a pretext to legitimize the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood’s former hold on the reins of government and to solidify the position of the post-coup leadership by purging real and imagined followers of the organization”.

[6]       There is no evidence before me that the claimant ever committed crimes of terrorism, that he was a member of the MB or any other alleged terrorist organization, or that he was complicit in any alleged crimes of terrorism. Therefore, I am satisfied that the issue of exclusion under either 1F(a) or 1F(c) does not apply in this case.

ALLEGATIONS

[7]       The claimant’s allegations are set out in his Basis of Claim Form and in his testimony. The following is a brief summary;

[8]       The claimant fears persecution by the Egyptian government on the basis of his real and imputed political opinion opposing the current regime.

DETERMINATION

[9]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee as he has established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely, real and imputed political opinion.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[10]     I find that the claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt is established by his testimony and supporting documentation filed including a certified true copy of his passport in Exhibit 1.

Credibility

[11]     The presumption before me is that the claimant’s testimony is true; however; this can be rebutted in appropriate circumstances, such as inconsistencies, contradictions, omissions and undetailed testimony.

[12]     The claimant provided detailed testimony with respect to his background, the origins of his political opinion and support for civilian as opposed to military governments dating to the revolution of 1952, when he was seven years old. He dearly and consistently stated that he believes in civilian run, democratic governments that support human rights.

[13]     There were no relevant inconsistencies in the claimant’s testimony or contradictions between his testimony and the other evidence before me. He did not appear to embellish his description of events and actions, even when it might have appeared favourable to his claim. I found the claimant to be a credible witness and therefore believe what he alleged in support of his claim.

Nexus (96)/grounds (97(1))

[14]     I find that the persecution the claimant faces has a nexus to one of the five convention grounds, that of political opinion, both real and imputed, and therefore this claim will be assessed under S 96.

Weil founded fear

[15]     In order to be considered a Convention Refugee a claimant must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution which includes both a subjective fear and an objective basis for that fear.

[16]     Based on the claimant’s testimony and supporting documents and the country condition documents I find that that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for the following reasons:

Subjective Fear

[17]     The claimant is an [XXX], and he founded his [XXX] in his hometown in 1986. He supported the 2011 revolution in Egypt, which he stated arose when people opposed police brutality, corruption, and the lack of freedom and human rights.

[18]     The claimant described his support for civilian rule, and the hope that he had after the 2011 revolution and subsequent democratic election in June of 2012 that installed Dr. Morsi as

leader. Although he was not an activist, as the [XXX] of a [XXX] in his hometown, he was a

respected [XXX] who shared his opinion freely with others.

[19]     The claimant said that the former government continued to interfere with the Morsi government and in June of 2013 it staged a military coup. Under the new regime anyone suspected of supporting the 2011 revolution and elections of 2012 came under scrutiny. The claimant’s [XXX] was targeted and forcibly taken over by the new regime in 2014. On [XXX] 2015, fearing for his safety and hoping that over time things would calm down so that he could return, he left Egypt to live with various family members around the world.

[20]     Tired, and running out of funds he returned to Egypt after [XXX] months on [XXX], 2017. However, on [XXX], 2017 he learned that he was being accused of being a terrorist in a court decree. He left Egypt the next day and never returned.

[21]     The claimant stayed with various family members on visitor’s visas in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and the USA. He was living with his son in the USA in 2019 when he attempted to renew his Egyptian passport which was due to expire in [XXX] 2020. He paid the fee and submitted his application and waited four months only to be informed by Egyptian authorities that his passport would not be renewed. Fearing he was soon to be abroad with an expired passport and that his life was in danger if he was returned to Egypt, he decided to claim asylum. Having read President Trump’s tweets in support of Al Sisi, he feared claiming asylum in the USA. He had a daughter in Canada, and after discussion with his family he crossed into Canada in [XXX] of 2019 to claim asylum.

[22]     I find that through his actions, his testimony, and in light of the country condition documents discussed below, the claimant has adduced sufficient credible evidence to establish that he has a subjective fear of persecution in Egypt

Objective Basis

[23]     The US Department of State reports that there are significant human rights issues in Egypt including unlawful or arbitrary killings, forced disappearances, torture, harsh and life­ threatening prison conditions, political prisoners, the worst forms of restrictions on free expression, as well as substantial inference with peaceful assembly and freedom of association, among other human rights issues. Furthermore, the government’s lack of support for the investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses contributed to a culture of impunity.^[3]

[24]     The Egyptian government targets those they perceive as opponents. Since the overthrow of Morsi, hundreds of MB members and supporters have been put on trial and given harsh sentences. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly criticized the lack of fair trials. As of 2016, as many as 40,000 people were detained for political reasons, most of them for real or suspected links to the MB.^[4]

[25]     The country documents show that this mistreatment of real as well as perceived opposition supporters has continued. NDP 2.2 states that the authorities resorted to a range of repressive measures against protesters and perceived dissidents, including enforced disappearance, mass arrests, torture and other ill-treatment, excessive use of force and severe probation measures, particularly after protests against the President on 20 September [2019]. Constitutional amendments expanded the role of military courts in prosecuting civilians and undermined the independence of the judiciary.^[5]

[26]     The mistreatment that both real and perceived opponents to the regime risk rises, in my opinion, to the level of persecution.

[27]     I am satisfied that the claimant, who clearly and repeatedly expressed his support for democracy and human rights and condemned the military coup, holds a genuine political opinion against the current regime. I am satisfied that the authorities perceive him as having a political opinion in opposition to them, and that this is reflected in their inclusion of the claimant on a list of terrorists in the court documents in Exhibit 4.

[28]     Based on all of the evidence before me, I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution by the state if he were to return to Egypt.

State Protection

[29]     Except in situations where the state is in complete breakdown, states must be presumed capable of protecting their citizens.

[30]     In this case, the agent of persecution is the state, and the persecution the claimant would face if returned to Egypt is at the hands of the authorities. Accordingly, I find there is no state protection available to the claimant.

Internal flight alternative (IFA)

[31]     Internal flight alternative arises when a claimant, who otherwise meets all the elements of the definition of a Convention refugee in his or her home area of the country, nevertheless is not a Convention refugee person in need of protection because the person can live safely elsewhere in that country.

[32]     The test for a viable IFA is two-pronged:

[33]     The Board must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that

1. The claimants would not face a serious possibility of persecution (section 96) or be subjected personally to a danger of torture, or a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (section 97) in the part of the country to which the panel finds an IFA exists, and
   1. Conditions in the part of the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for him or her to seek refuge there.^[6]

First prong

[34]     The state of Egypt is the agent of harm, and it is in control of all its territories. Therefore, I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution throughout the entire country. I find there is no IFA for the claimant in Egypt

CONCLUSION

[35]     I find that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon his return to Egypt due to his real and imputed political opinion.

[36]     Based on the totality of the evidence, I conclude that the claimant is a convention refugee. Accordingly, I accept his claim.

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

^[2] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 2.7: Egypt’s failing “War on Terror”.

Heinrich-Boll-Stiftung. Helena Burgrova. February 2017.

^[3] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 2.1: Egypt. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019. United States. Department of State. 11 March 2020.

^[4] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 4.5: Treatment of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including leaders, returnee members and suspected members, by authorities, following the removal of President Mohamed Morsi (2014-May 2017). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 12 June 2017. EGY105804.E.

^[5] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 30 October 2020, tab 2.2: Egypt. Human Rights in the Middle East and North Africa: Review of 2019. Amnesty International. 18 February 2020. MDE 01/1357/2020.

^[6] Rasaratnam v. Canada (MEI), [1992] I FC 706 (CA)

Citation: 2020 RLLR 35
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 5, 2020 (date of transcription)
Panel: N/A
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt 
RPD Number: MB8-25654
ATIP Number: A-2021-00655
ATIP Pages: 000028-000034

[1]       This is the decision in the claim of Mr. [XXX], his wife Madam [XXX] and their minor children, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] who are citizens of Egypt and are claiming asylum pursuant to Section 96 and Subsection 97.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act hereafter referred to the IRPA.

[2]       The Claimant’s allegations appear in the Principal Claimant’s Basis of Claim form hereafter referred to as the BOC and his written narrative from which the tribunal retains the following central allegations.

[3]       So, the main Claimant was working for [XXX] as an [XXX] for [XXX]. In this capacity he had been mandated to represent the interests of his [XXX] and specifically for this case for the [XXX], or [XXX] on or about 2015. Having been informed of the cancellation of the [XXX] he took the initiative on or about [XXX], 2016 to organize a meeting with [XXX] [phonetic] of the [XXX].

[4]       During their conversation or discussion, should I say, he would have said to [XXX] that the military were indeed taking control over the country which was led [XXX] to terminate abruptly the meeting. Later on, his human resources department would have called him and told him that he was removed from [XXX], [XXX]. That wasn’t all. This episode led to the following incidents which are forming the basis of their refugee claim.

[5]       On [XXX], 2016 at about 3 o’clock the Claimant was arrested from home and brought to [XXX] where he was detained for [XXX] days plus one week and questioned about the Muslim Brotherhood, the revolution of the 25^th of January, 2011 and the revolution of the 30^th of June, 2013. He will eventually be released upon accepting to write a statement in which he engaged himself not to participate in future political events nor to express his political views in the future and therefore he was released.

[6]       A second arrest took place on [XXX], 2017. In fact, the Claimant was about to leave his office located in [XXX] which is a neighborhood of [XXX] in order to meet a friend or a colleague from [XXX] and once at the [XXX] he was arrested by the police and taken to the national security building. He was slapped, interrogated, humiliated and later on put in detention under poor conditions.

[7]       His release was secured after [XXX] days. However, he soon realized that they were direct repercussions to his problems with the [XXX] as his employer had forced him to resign and accordingly, he was facing a loss of several benefits. He was told directly and indirectly that the intelligence unit or national security apparatus had informed the employer that to keep him in this position was not good for their business. And it is understood according to the Claimant that he was sacrificed on the basis of higher commercial interests of [XXX].

[8]       This led him to make the decision to visit Canada with his wife, his younger child and his mother on [XXX], 2017. However, as two of his children had remained in Egypt the Co­Claimant was forced to return to Egypt on [XXX], 2017 while the Principal Claimant remained in the Montreal area. It appears that he was trying to heal from the past incidents.

[9]       However, he was informed that the police raided his house on [XXX], 2018 in his absence as they were looking for him in order to arrest him. This prompted this decision to depart from Canada and return back to Cairn which he did on [XXX], 2018. Even though he was not arrested he was detained at the passport unit for two hours and let go.

[10]     Again, on [XXX], 2018 he was arrested from home by joint forces including police and army personnel, taken by truck outside Cairn and put in detention in a facility which was unofficial according to him. And where the regime opponents were detained. It is his understanding that the people there were mostly accused or suspected of having activities with the Muslim Brotherhood or to have western views or collaborating with western countries. He was later on taken to [XXX] [phonetic] where he was released as his wife was waiting for him.

[11]     Upon this last release the Claimant decided to go to the north part of Egypt to be as much as possible away from his family for their safety and it is on or about [XXX], 2018 that he took the decision to leave Egypt in order to seek international protection. As he was fearful of being controlled and possible arrested but also afraid of putting his wife and children in danger, he decided to contact people and try to organize a collaboration of state security apparatus in place by paying individuals that would facilitate his departure from Egypt without any problems.

[12]     It is therefore in those circumstances that the Claimant came to Canada with the idea of claiming refugee status which led to the current hearing.

[13]     Naturally as minor children are involved in the process of this hearing the tribunal had the opportunity to confirm that for this proceeding the main Claimant, Mr. [XXX] was appointed and accepted the responsibilities of Designated Representative for his minor children, namely, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX]. This in accordance with Section 167(2) of the IRPA and RPD Rule 20 and Guideline No. 3.

[14]     Under the rubric of determination, the tribunal finds that the Claimants have established that they would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground should they return to their home country, Egypt. Therefore, the tribunal finds that they are “Convention Refugees”.

[15]     In making this assessment the tribunal considered all of the evidence including the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence filed by the board but also by their counsel.

[16]     The Claimant’s identities as citizens of Egypt is established through their original passports containing a Canadian visa. Their passports were seized by Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA and therefore the Claimants have met their burden of proof to the satisfaction of the tribunal.

[17]     Under the rubric of nexus in this case the Claimant’ s fear are linked to two Convention grounds. First political opinion and secondly, membership in a particular social group, namely the family group for the Co-Claimant and the children.

[18]     As for the credibility, 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. The determination as to whether a Claimant’s evidence is creditable is made on the balance of probabilities. In assessing credibility, the tribunal was mindful of the Claimant’s profile. The tribunal is cognizant of many difficulties faced by claimants in establishing a claim including cultural factors, the milieu of the hearing room, the stress inherent in responding to questions and sometimes through an interpreter and nervousness.

[19]     It is important to mention that the Claimant’s allegations were also supported by numerous documentary evidence establishing that they were targeted by the state security apparatus, the police force and or the military and that the Principal Claimant was detained on several occasions.

[20]     To this effect it is important to mention that the Principal Claimant professional and corporate profile was established through several documents including but not limited to his CV, social insurance contributions, internal communications at [XXX]. All of these documents were filed under Exhibit 4, Item P4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17 and 18.

[21]     As for the prosecutor incidents they were also corroborated by the Claimant’s letter of resignation to [XXX] and numerous police reports and lawyer’s letters. Indeed, we have the resignation letter filed under Exhibit 4, Item P9 but also, we have a police report filed as Item P10 for the arrest of [XXX], 2016, P11 concerning the disappearance of the Principal Claimant on [XXX], 2017, P12 concerning the police raid on the residence of the Claimant on [XXX], 2018 and finally Exhibit P14 pertaining to the arrest of [XXX], 2018.

[22]     Accordingly, we had also the benefit of seeing the letters from his lawyer pertaining to the raid of [XXX], 2018 filed as Item P13 and the letter to the Attorney General sent by his lawyer pertaining to his arrest and detention following the event of [XXX], 2018.

[23]     So, all this evidence stated above corroborated the Claimant’s allegations of the persecutory acts they have faced and also of their subjective fear of returning back to Egypt and facing again persecution at the hands of the state security apparatus.

[24]     In reaching this conclusion the panel also considering Section 203 of the UNHCR Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status as it states that it is hardly possible for refugee claimants to prove every part of their case and also Section 39 which states that a person would not normally abandon his home and country without some compelling reasons. As a matter of fact, under the objective basis the tribunal further finds that the Claimant’s evidence as a whole is generally consistent with the objective documentary evidence.

[25]     Indeed, Exhibit 4, Item 19, filed on behalf of the Claimant consists of three newspaper articles pertaining to the arrest of opponents to the regime or their suspicious disappearances. Moreover, the latest Human Rights Watch Report for 2018 refers to the regime’s campaign of intimidation, violence and arrests against political opponents, the civil society and whoever criticizes the government.

[26]     The fight against terrorism is the general pretext for the repression and multiple human rights abuses in order to silence even the most pacifist opponents. In fact, the poor human rights record of the current Egyptian regime is detailed throughout the National Documentation Package as it [phonetic] appears from Exhibit No. 3. Therefore, the Claimants allegations are plausible within the social and political environment prevailing in Egypt.

[27]     As for the state protection and the internal flight alternative even though the tribunal has not identified such issues it is important to mention that the state is the agent of persecution and the state of Egypt is in full control over its sovereign territory protection and state protection and IFA are not viable options in the case at bar.

[28]     Finally, under the rubric of conclusion the tribunal finds that the Claimants have established that they would face a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground in Egypt.

[29]     Having considered all of the evidence the tribunal determines that Mr. [XXX], his wife [XXX] and their minor children, [XXX], [XXX] and [XXX] are “Convention Refugees” pursuant to Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[30]     It is therefore unnecessary for the tribunal to conduct an analysis of Section 97(1) of the Act.

[31]     On behalf of all Canadians but in my personal name I welcome you to Canada and wish that you will be able to find happiness here and serenity and that you will be able to materialize your dreams.

[32]     Therefore, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Maître Beauchemin for his usual collaboration and to our interpreter and I wish you a wonderful day. It is now two minutes past eleven and this is ending today’s hearing in the case number MB8-25654. Have a nice day everyone.

Citation: 2019 RLLR 85
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: Maria Vega
Counsel for the Claimant(s): John P. Howorun
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-16817
ATIP Number: A-2020-01459
ATIP Pages: 000027-000031

[1]       PRESIDING MEMBER: This is the decision in the case of file number TB7-16817. This decision is with respect to the claim of Mr. [XXX]. He claims to be a citizen of Egypt and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to Sections 96 and Section 97.(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[2]       This decision is being rendered orally today and a written form of these reasons will be sent to your home at your address, sir, and they may also be edited for spelling, syntax, grammar as well as references to the applicable case law and legislation as well as exhibits.

[3]       I find that the claimant is a national of Egypt as is established by his testimony and by the supporting documentation filed; namely, his passport, a certified true copy of which is found in Exhibit 1, as well as his Egyptian identity card which was found in Exhibit 9.

[4]       From this evidence I conclude on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has Egyptian citizenship and that he is who he claims to be.

[5]       Mr. [XXX], I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons.

[6]       In this case the nexus to the Convention definition is your imputed political opinion. You have come to the attention of the security authorities in Egypt, at first through your attaining what you believe to be an authentic building permit to build a barn on your property. Then you proceeded to build this and then when it was demolished and you complained about that you came facing the police and then were taken to the police station.

[7]       You also appear from your evidence to have come to the attention of the police authorities through your involvement in attending anti-government, political demonstrations in November 2016, as well as by posting on your Facebook page what were anti-government opinions as well as the fact that you had attended those demonstrations.

[8]       The allegations are found in your Basis of Claim Form and I will just summarize them, but I won’t provide every detail.

[9]       These demonstrations which you attended in November 2016 were against the government of Mr. El-Sisi giving two Egyptian islands to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and also they were against the rising inflation that was taking place in Egypt.

[10]     With respect to the building permit which you had obtained from what you believe to be a legitimate source, the office that issued the permits, you had paid your 4,000 Egyptian pounds and then you proceeded to build the barn in December of 2016.

[11]     Then shortly afterwards on the 7^th of January 2017 the police went to your home with the equipment and commenced demolishing the barn.

[12]     Then when you protested you were subsequently taken the police station. You were there accused of assaulting police officers with weapons which you then denied, and then you were kept in solitary confinement for two months and warned to not speak out against the government again or you would be killed.

[13]     Your family who had gone looking for you at the police station where you were taken had been told by the authorities at that time that you were released the very first day, thus causing them to extreme fear thinking that you had disappeared as others had – as it had happened to others.

[14]     You also understood by the warning that you were given by the police that they were aware of your anti-government opinions and the posts that you had published on Facebook as you had not spoken out against the government in any way until that point except by writing on your Facebook page which was in your account, and by attending the two protests in November of 2016.

[15]     You were released from detention on the [XXX] 2017. Customers who had come to you in the past for painting jobs had ostracized you as did your friends who stopped contacting you.

[16]     And there was the belief that your detention by the police was for the illegal building of the barn, but you told people at your brother’s barbershop that it was not for that, but because you had spoken out against them for what they were doing to you.

[17]     Also upon learning from your cousin whose friend while working at the national security office in Garbaya (ph) you learned that there was a warrant for your arrest.

[18]     You immediately commenced making arrangements to leave the country and to obtain a temporary resident visa to Canada. You then travelled to Canada in [XXX] 2017 and subsequently make a protection claim in August 2017.

[19]     You have a wife and two children in Egypt and they are staying with her parents instead of at your home as you are aware that the police have gone to your home looking for you for about six times and they have even gone to look for you at your home while there’s no one there and this information was obtained by your wife and she informed you that she obtained it from the neighbours who saw them go there.

[20]     And you provided a picture of the broken door that the police caused recently in January and this photograph is Exhibit 10.

[21]     You fear returning to Egypt because you fear that the police will detain you, that you may disappear or you may possibly be killed by the police or you will be given a long sentence for something that you did not do which was you did not assault the police officers and not with weapons either.

[22]     The temporary resident visa that you obtained to Canada was obtained through the help of a person and to whom you paid $10,000 total and that they arranged that you would leave the country without any problems and so you did.

[23]     Regarding your credibility, Mr. [XXX], I found that your response were generally consistent with your Basis of Claim Form. I was concerned about the BOC omission whereby you omitted to mention that you had written your political opinions on Facebook or on social media.

[24]     You provided an explanation that you did not have any copies of these to give, given that you had someone, an expert on computers close your account or you believe they closed it permanently or deactivated it permanently so that there would be no risk to your wife and your sisters and your family in Egypt once you had left the country. Therefore, that is why you did not mention the Facebook account and your political opinions in social media to your counsel and then put that in your Basis of Claim Form.

[25]     I have considered your education level and the hearing evidence and find that this explanation under the circumstances of this case is reasonable and that you have had in this hearing opportunities to embellish your evidence by your testimony, but you did not take those opportunities. Therefore, I’ve concluded that I find you to be a credible witness and some of your response were very spontaneous.

[26]     Your evidence is consistent with the documentary material both in counsel’s package as well as in the National Documentation Package found at Exhibit 3 primarily with respect to the deteriorating human rights situation in Egypt.

[27]     Counsel’s package of Exhibit 5 speaks also about the – sorry, Exhibit 8 speaks about the corruption that has taken over Egypt primarily since the el-Sisi Government and the large bribes that are paid for people to build permit or get building permits where they should not be getting them and how this is a huge problem in Egypt at the present time.

[28]     In your case you believe that it was a legitimate and actual permit that you obtained whereby you continue – you proceeded to build your barn.  Whether it was or not that’s not – we won’t know, but the issue is that you are being charged by the police with something that you claim you did not do which was assaulting the police officers and anything that you have done with respect to protecting what you believe was your right to build that barn and complain to the police officers. They took that to be an example of a political opinion against them.

[29]     The situation in the documentary material clearly indicates that the human rights in Egypt are continuing to deteriorate.

[30]     There’s a report in Amnesty International with respect to 2017 that indicates that to be case. It speaks about the authorities arbitrarily restricting the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

[31]     It speaks there also about a crackdown plot by the government that was to include members of the Muslim Brotherhood as well as anyone that was perceived to be members of armed groups, but reliable human rights sources speak about how many people who were just sympathizers are often caught and unfairly treated in these group crackdowns.

[32]     In some cases detainees in political cases or anyone who has an opposing view to the government are often held in prolonged detention without charge or without trial.

[33]     The documentary material also speaks about unfair trials when these are held and anyone who has a view opposing the current government is held accountable for that view and will be detained.

[34]     Many human rights groups throughout the world believe that the Egyptian authorities have misused many of their powers against their own citizens and that the Egyptian authorities troll through social media to see who has said anything opposing the government and that is whereby you think that they may have read your Facebook posts and they may have.

[35]     I believe that for these reasons, Mr. [XXX], you cannot ask the Government of Egypt for protection because they are the source of persecution to you.

[36]     You also cannot go elsewhere in the country to live safely without hiding because you would face the same possibility or serious grounds of persecution given what is your imputed political opinion and that means that it’s the opinion of the authorities believe you have. It doesn’t really matter whether you actually have it, but the authorities in Egypt believe that you are against the government because of what you have said and maybe because of what you have written.

[37]     So for all of these reasons I find that you, [XXX], are a Convention refugee and I therefore accept your claim.

[38]     This hearing is now concluded. Thanks, Madam Interpreter, for all your assistance. Good day, Counsel.

[39]     COUNSEL: Thank you.

[40]     PRESIDING MEMBER: Good day to you, sir. All the best to everyone and we’re concluding now.

—- REASONS CONCLUDED —–