Citation: 2019 RLLR 162
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 25, 2019
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Michael F. Loebach
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-21630
Associated RPD Number(s): TB7-21638, TB7-21655, TB7-21656
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000185-000191
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the principal claimant, hereinafter referred to as the P.C.), his spouse XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their two minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, all citizens of Egypt, are claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
[2] The P.C. consented to act as designated representative on behalf of his two minor children.
EXPEDITED PROCESS
[3] Paragraph 170(f) of the IRPA provides that the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) may allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, unless the Minister has notified the RPD of the Minister’s intention to intervene within the time limit set out in the Refugee Protection Division Rules.1 Further, subsection 162(2) of the IRPA directs each division to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit. The claimants’ claims were identified as those that could be processed through the RPD expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimants’ signed certificate of readiness for the expedited process on June 22, 2018.2 Having carefully considered the evidence in these cases, the panel finds that these claims meet the criteria for the expedited determination. These claims have therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division.3
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimants’ allegations are described in detail in his Basis of Claim Form (BOC). However, they can be summarized as follows.
[5] The claimant’s father, wanting to secure the future of his family, sold everything to buy property in February 26, 2013. However, notwithstanding the legal rights and a contract, the Government seized the property and it became the property of the armed forces.
[6] The P.C. attended many demonstrations beginning in 2011 and continued to do so after the revolution.
[7] The P.C.’s wife sustained an incident on a bus in March 2016, where the bus driver wanted to charge her more than the regulated price. The police were called and blamed her, not the driver beat her and took off her hijab. She reported the incident to the police, however, they refused to open an investigation.
[8] In November 2016, the P.C.’s wife went to visit her aunt the children. Unfortunately, the taxi driver was a criminal who kidnaps women and children. They were taken somewhere, and threatened, however, the P.C.’s wife gave him everything they had and they were able to escape on foot.
[9] On April 15, 2016, the P.C. attended a huge demonstration which took place in several provinces, asking to stop giving up the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. The P.C. also attended the demonstrations that followed the actual waiver of these islands. The security forces came the day before the demonstration; they did not have any documents.
[10] The Egyptian security arrested a lot of people in many of the provinces and the P.C.’s house was among those where acts of violence took place. They entered the house without permission and broke everything, and stole his children’s tablets with video games. The P.C. believes that a neighbour was an informant.
[11] The P.C. continued to attend demonstrations demanding in rights and freedom. On June 16, 2017, the armed security forces attacked a demonstration; the P.C. was beaten in the face and abdomen and they tried to take his cellphone. He and others were arrested and detained at the metro station for several hours. A colleague of the P.C. photographed what was happening. The P.C. was detained for one week, where he was tortured, beaten, his cellphone taken and the photographs were deleted. The authorities threatened to imprison the P.C. at any time, and as well they threatened members of his family.
[12] On August 22, 2017, the P.C. was surprised by a phone call from his neighbour basically warning him to leave. They went into hiding and arrived in Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017.
DETERMINATON
[13] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.
ANALYSIS
Identifies
[14] The claimants’ identities have been established as per their passports, birth certificates, National ID Cards, and marriage certificate.
Credibility
[15] The claimants have provided proof of their professions, the P.C. as an XXXX and his wife as a XXXX. They have also submitted supporting letters from the P.C.’s mother and a friend, witness declarations, a police report, and proof of land purchase, and a letter from the individual with whom the family hid. The P.C’s wife has provided corroborative evidence of the taxi incident which occurred on the way to her home. The panel finds that this supportive evidence is consistent with the contents of the P.C.’s BOC.
[16] The claimants have also provided country documentation which is consistent with the Board’s National Documentation Package (NDP), in which it describes, in particular, danger to women and children and those individuals who speak out against the government.
Objective basis/Prospective Risk of Return
[17] In order to establish their claim as a Convention refugee, the claimants must demonstrate that if they were to return to their home country, they would face a serious possibility of persecution based on a Convention ground.
[18] The claimants indicate that they fear persecution if they return to their country of nationality, Egypt, because of the P.C.’s opposition to the government and the risk to his wife and children.
[19] First of all, the panel has taken into consideration the family’s personal profile and the P.C.’s particular situation at this time. The P.C. is a professional who has participated in a number of demonstrations over the years, and has been detained as a result.
[20] According to the objective evidence, the Egyptian authorities are known for their repression of freedom of expression and association, notably repression of those who are considered political opponents.4 The US Department of State reports:5
The most significant human rights issues included arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; major terrorist attacks;… arbitrary arrest and detention; including the use of military courts to try civilians; political prisoners and detainees; unlawful interference in privacy; limits on freedom of expression,… restrictions on the press, internet, and academic freedom; and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and association, including government control over registration and financing of NGOs.
[21] According to the objective evidence on file, there are numerous reports that the Egyptian forces have used excessive force against activists and opponents, particularly during the demonstrations in 2011 and in 2013. Sources indicate that thousands of people who are perceived as opponents to the current government have been detained for extended periods of time, which, in many cases, could be considered enforced disappearances. There are also recent reports that indicate that members of the Egyptian military have committed acts which may amount to human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings. The objective evidence on file indicates that family members of perceived opponents were also subjected to this treatment. Finally, reports also indicate that there were problems with impunity for officials who committed abuses and unfairness in the judicial system.6
[22] The panel notes that in this particular case, according to the allegations which have been deemed to be credible, the P.C. has been the victim of aggression and has been arrested and detained on numerous occasions. In consideration of the entirety of the evidence, including the P.C.’s personal profile and his particular situation, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the panel accepts that the P.C. may be perceived as a political opponent upon returning to Egypt.
[23] Considering the treatment of real or perceived political opponents and dissenters by the Egyptian authorities, the panel concludes that there is a serious possibility that the P.C. may face persecution based on a Convention ground, that being his real or perceived political opinion, upon return to his country of nationality, Egypt.
State Protection
[24] Claimants must establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that the state would be unwilling or unable to provide adequate protection if they were to return to their home country.
[25] As noted above, the panel has taken into consideration the P.C.’s personal profile and his particular situation at the present time. The panel has taken into consideration that the claimants fears the Egyptian authorities. As explained above, the panel notes that according to the allegations, that the P.C. has been arrested and detained by the Egyptian authorities on numerous occasions, and prior to leaving the country in 2017, state security forces were looking for him.
[26] More importantly, the P.C. has approached the police on a number of occasions, and they have taken no action whatsoever.
[27] Therefore, for all of the reasons explained above, and in consideration of the P.C’s personal profile and his particular situation, as well as the current conditions in Egypt, the panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection is not adequate for the claimants if they were to return to their home country at this time. The panel concludes that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted in these particular circumstances.
Internal Flight Alternative
[28] Claimants must establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution throughout their country of nationality.
[29] Once again, the panel has considered the family’s particular situation at the present time. As explained above, the panel notes that they fear the Egyptian authorities.
[30] Furthermore, as explained above, the panel has taken into consideration the objective evidence regarding the current situation in Egypt. Upon consideration of the entirety of the evidence, the panel finds that the treatment of political opponents and dissidents, or those perceived as such, is not limited to any regions in Egypt, but is widespread. The panel notes that the laws currently used to repress political opponents are national laws, and may be applied throughout Egypt.
[31] For all of the reasons explained above, considering the P.C.’s personal situation, as explained above, the panel finds that the there is a serious possibility of persecution for the claimants throughout Egypt at this time. Therefore, a viable internal flight alternative is currently not available for the claimants within Egypt.
CONCLUSION
[32] For all of the reasons explained above, the panel finds that these claimants are Convention refugees.
[33] Therefore, their claims are accepted.
(signed) ROSLYN AHARA
March 25, 2019
1 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.
2 Exhibit 7.
3 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.
4 Exhibit 6, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3and 2.4.
5 Ibid., item 2.1.
6 Ibid., items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, and 10.1.