Citation: 2019 RLLR 164
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: May 22, 2019
Panel: Tita De Rousseau
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Diana B. Coulthard
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB7-25327
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000253-000259
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX as a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).1
EXPEDITED PROCESS
[2] The claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division and subsection 170(f) of the Act.2
[3] In deciding the claim, the panel has considered all of the evidence before it, including the Basis of Claim (BOC) form,3 the referral documents,4 the country of origin information contained within the National Documentation Package (NDP)5 and the claimant’s documentary evidence.6
ALLEGATIONS
[4] The claimant alleges that he has two somewhat separate reasons to fear persecution in Egypt: first, as a person suspected of being a member of, or being allied with, the banned Muslim Brotherhood (MB); and secondly, as a person pressured by the authorities to spy on colleagues and other persons.
[5] The claimant alleged that in 2011 while living and working in Cairo, together with his uncle he helped establish a charity to assist the poor. That uncle was already involved in charitable work as part of his involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood. The claimant alleges he never joined the Muslim Brotherhood as he tried to avoid political involvement, but together with some of his family members, he distributed goods to the needy with his charitable organization, which was not allied with the Muslim Brotherhood.
[6] In December 2013, the organization’s premises were raided by the Egyptian National Security (ENS). Both the claimant and his uncle were arrested; the claimant was release in three days, but the uncle was detained for a month. After a subsequent arrest in January 2014, the claimant was ordered to close the charity as the ENS claimed it was a front for political activity.
[7] The claimant alleges that for the next four years, he continued to be harassed by ENS, detained occasionally and badly treated. He was questioned each time about the Muslim Brotherhood despite his denial of any knowledge of their activities.
[8] He finally resorted to moving frequently to avoid the ENS harassment, but he was located each time and the detentions and interrogations about the Muslim Brotherhood continued until he left Egypt.
[9] Starting in XXXX 2016, when the claimant was travelling to Sinai for his employer, he was stopped by the Egyptian Military Intelligence (EMI at a security checkpoint, he believes at the request of ENS. He was pressed to provide information to the authorities about his colleagues in Sinai and about the local people he came in contact with.
[10] He refused to do so, largely because he feared that as a spy, he would be identified and killed by the locals he was being asked to spy on. His refusal led to detentions and threats that he would be killed if he did not provide information.
[11] The claimant finally decided to leave Egypt using his own passport and an existing Canadian visa by arranging payment of bribes to authorities.
[12] He fears he would be detained, tortured and perhaps killed on return to Egypt.
DETERMINATION
[13] The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, based on his perceived and actual political opinion which is opposed to the current regime’s policies.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[14] The claimant has established his identity by his passport,7 his Egyptian Personal Identity card8 and other documentation.
Credibility
[15] When a claimant swears that certain facts are true, this creates a presumption that they are indeed true unless there is a valid reason to doubt their veracity.9 In this case, the claimant’s evidence is internally consistent and consistent with information contained in the NDP.10 The panel concludes he is generally credible.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm
[16] As noted above, the claimant’s fear of persecution in Egypt arises from two related issues; his perceived connection with the Muslim Brotherhood and his failure to comply with demands from EMI to spy on colleagues and local people in Sinai.
[17] The claimant alleged that as his uncle was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, he was suspected of associating with the MB as well.
[18] The charitable organization he established with his uncle for non-political reasons was shut down in January 2014 as the government suspected that such organizations were connected to the Muslim Brotherhood charitable groups. The claimant was detained and interrogated by authorities about the Muslim Brotherhood on many occasions after that, despite his insistence that he was not connected with the group and had no knowledge of their activities.
[19] The documentary evidence confirms that since 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned along with its associated organizations:
The USSD report covering events in 2016 observed that: ‘The Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party and its NGO remained illegal, and the Muslim Brotherhood was a legally designated terrorist organization.
…According to Amnesty International in their Report 2015-2016: ‘By the end of [2015], the government said it had closed more than 480 non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) because of their alleged links to the MB group.
…The DFAT report state ‘DFAT understands that most, if not all, NGO’s affiliated to the Brotherhood have either been shut down, had their assets seized, and/or had their board replaced with government appointees. 11
[20] The documents indicate that because the MB was declared a terrorist organization, all its activities were thereby criminalized and many were detained:
Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report for 2017 similarly indicates that civil society organizations “estimate that as many as [40,000] people were being detained for political reasons most of them for real or suspected links to the Muslim Brotherhood.12
[21] Although the claimant’ s organization was not in fact associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, his uncle’s involvement both with the charitable organization and the MB brought the claimant to the attention of the authorities. His testimony that he was arrested, detained and tortured on many occasions indicates that while the authorities likely knew he was not a member of MB, or they would not have released him after the interrogations, he was a person they had targeted for constant surveillance and persecution. His attempts to relocate were unsuccessful and the persecution continued until he left Egypt.
[22] The claimant alleged that in addition to the continual detentions and interrogations about the MB, starting in 2016, he was pressured by authorities to spy on colleagues in his workplace. The claimant alleged that as part of his employment, he was required to travel on occasion to Sinai, which is an area of ongoing conflict. The claimant refused to cooperate as he feared he would be killed by those persons he was asked to spy on.
[23] By his refusal, the claimant has made it obvious to the authorities that he does not agree with government actions and policies. He has established that his political opinion is opposed to that of the regime.
[24] The panel concludes that there is a serious possibility that upon return to Egypt, he would suffer persecution by government authorities for his perceived and real political opinion.
State Protection
[25] A state, unless in complete breakdown, is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens; international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant cannot obtain protection domestically. However, in this situation, where it is the state itself that is the agent of persecution, there is no state protection available to the claimant.
Internal Flight Alternative
[26] There is no safe or reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA) location available to this claimant. He has tried to move residences frequently to avoid detection by the authorities, but they located him each time. As it is the authorities themselves the claimant fears and the Egyptian government is control of the entirety of the country, an IFA is not available.
CONCLUSION
[27] The claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, because of his well-founded fear of persecution for his political opinion. The claim is accepted.
(signed) TITA DE ROUSSEAU
May 22, 2019