Citation: 2019 RLLR 165
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 4, 2019
Panel: William T. Short
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Zainab Jamal
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-00625
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000288 – 000294
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 34 is a citizen of Egypt who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in that country on the account of the fact that he is perceived by the ruling regime of President El-Sisi to be a member of, or a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. He accordingly claims to be a Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1 The claimant also claims to be a person in need of protection within the meaning of subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).2
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The following factual allegations are made by the claimant that he would face persecution in Egypt because of perceived political opinion, which has established a connection to a ground for claiming protection as a Convention refugee.
[3] The claimant alleges that he was a small businessman in Egypt and owned a shop selling XXXX and other items. He was a supporter of President Morsi, because he thought that Morsi would act for the good of the common people, when he was elected President of Egypt in 2012. However, General El-Sisi came to power by a military coup in 2013.
[4] On May 7, 2013, the claimant was arrested while taking part in a peaceful demonstration in front of the Ibrahim Morsi Mosque. The claimant says that he was accused of being part of the Freedom and Justice Party (a part of the Muslim Brotherhood) and was detained for 17 days. During that time the claimant was repeatedly beaten, and kept in inhumane conditions, consisting of severe overcrowding, no toilet facilities, and being forced to sleep on the floor in the same place where he had to urinate.
[5] After that experience, the claimant, upon his release, resolved not to take part in any further political activity.
[6] All was calm until 2016, when El-Sisi took the decision to cede the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia. The claimant, who held deep feelings about this subject, put a sign in his window that effectively stated that Egypt was not for sale. The claimant believes that the sign led the police to beat down his door at 4:00 am on December 5, 2016 and arrested him again. This time the claimant was taken to jail in his pyjamas where he was pushed down the steps and as a result he suffered a fracture to his left leg. Although the claimant’s leg was broken, he was refused medical attention and was beaten for making a lot of noise. During his time in jail the second time, the claimant was tortured and held in solitary confinement for four days. After being held for a total of nine days, the claimant was released.
[7] On December 18, 2016, he immediately sought medical attention for his left leg and was informed that it had been fractured. His leg was put in a cast for about six weeks afterwards.
[8] The claimant maintains that after this last episode, he was thoroughly sick and tired of Egypt and sought another country to live in. To that end, he travelled to the United Kingdom (U.K.) in April of 2017. In England, the claimant consulted a lawyer, who advised him that successfully claiming refugee protection would take a long time and that he would have a better chance to successfully claim refugee status if he returned to Egypt and obtained U.K. visitors visas for his wife and children. Taking the lawyer’s advice, the claimant returned to Egypt in XXXX of 2017.
[9] After returning to Egypt, the claimant heard that Canada was also a country to which he and his family could potentially travel and seek shelter. The claimant applied for a Canadian visa in July 2017.
[10] The claimant remembers briefly discussing the handing over of the two islands to a friend on the street. The next day, while the claimant was away, purchasing inventory for his store, he was contacted by his employee via telephone. The employee informed him that the police had come to his store and wished to arrest the claimant. Later, the police went to the claimant’s home looking for him; when he could not be found, they arrested his brother. His brother was later released after questioning.
[11] In the meantime, the claimant hid out at a cousin’s house in another province. His visa to Canada was issued and his brother, who had held his passport was able to send it to the claimant through an intermediary.
[12] The claimant then purchased his airline ticket to come to Canada. He was able to leave Cairo with the assistance of his cousin who had connections to officialdom. The claimant was able to move through Cairo airport where his documents were examined twice. He left Egypt on XXXX XXXX, 2017 and arrived in Canada shortly thereafter. He applied for refugee protection in December of 2018.
DETERMINATION
[13] The panel accepts the certified copy of the claimant’s Egyptian passport3 entered into evidence and finds that the claimant is who he claims to be and is a citizen of Egypt.
The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his claim for protection.
ANALYSIS
[14] The claimant has presented a number of documents, which in my opinion corroborate his allegations of fact. Specifically, I have taken note of the following documents and their certified translations; medical report4 confirming that the claimant suffered a broken leg; record of arrest;5 as well as letters from the claimant’s father, brother, and cousin.6
[15] Given the claimant’s testimony and the documentary evidence, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the allegations of fact alleged by the claimant are more likely are true.
[16] Even though I am somewhat skeptical about the way that the claimant left Egypt for the second time, I am mindful that, although it is a dictatorship, Egypt is a creaky, inefficient bureaucracy, rife with inefficiencies and corruption and lacking the advanced information technology employed by other absolutist regimes. I accordingly find on a balance of probabilities that it was not implausible that the claimant left Egypt as alleged, passing through Cairo airport without attracting the attention of the authorities.
Subjective fear
[17] The largest problem that the claimant had to overcome, in this matter, was the fact that he had successfully left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017 and had voluntarily returned to that country on XXXX XXXX of the same year.
[18] When asked why he had returned to Egypt in XXXX of 2017, the claimant said in effect that he returned because even though he was fed up with Egypt and no longer wished to live there at that time, he believed that he would not have any more problems because he was not politically active as he was not taking part in any demonstrations or showing outward signs of political activism. The claimant surmises that he was speaking with a friend on the street in July 2017, and he was overheard mentioning the ceding of Tiran Island and Sanafir Island. The claimant believes that it was this incident that triggered the issue of the arrest warrant on July 23, 2017.
[19] The claimant testified that he had sought legal advice in the U.K. and he was advised that it would be better for him to return to Egypt and apply for U.K. visas with his wife and family. He was also told it would be better for all of them to apply for asylum in the U.K.
[20] In the circumstances, I am cognizant of three points:
[21] At the time of his return to Egypt in XXXX of 2017, the claimant thought that he had nothing to fear from the authorities. He reasoned that they would have no further interest in him because he was no longer politically active, in any way. He did not realize at the time that he could be re-arrested on the smallest pretext, or for no reason at all;
[22] The claimant had sought and obtained legal advice in the U.K. Unfortunately, for him, that advice was not necessarily as wise as it might have been. The claimant was acting in a reasonable way and should not in these very specific circumstances suffer for acting on professional advice in returning to Egypt.
[23] After he became aware of the new arrest warrant issued on July 23, 2017, the claimant immediately went into hiding and left Egypt by surreptitious means. After July 23, 2017 and until the present time, the claimant has demonstrated a constant subjective fear of the governing regime in Egypt.
Objective possibility of harm
[24] I am of the view that the findings of fact, as noted above certainly indicate that the claimant, should he return to Egypt would face a very real danger of persecution on account of his perceived support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
[25] Moreover, the allegations made by the claimant are not inconsistent with the National Documentation Package.7 The U.S. Department of State Country Reports indicate that in Egypt,
“[t]he most significant human rights issues include arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; … disappearance; torture; harsh or potentially life threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention … [t]he government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses….8
[26] The Country Reports further points out that “[l]ocal rights organizations documented hundreds of incidents of torture throughout the year, including deaths resulting from torture.9 [footnotes omitted]
INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTRNATIVE
[27] Inasmuch as the Egyptian state, in this case is the agent of persecution, the issue of the availability, or effectiveness of state protection is rendered moot.
[28] Moreover, the Egyptian state is in effective control of its national territory and there accordingly, can be no internal flight alternative for the claimant anywhere in Egypt.
CONCLUSION
[29] For the reasons cited above, I concluded that should the claimant return to Egypt, he would face more than a mere possibility of harm for a Convention reason. He is accordingly found to be a Convention refugee and his claim is accepted.
(signed) WILLIAM T. SHORT
February 4, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, section 96
2 Ibid., section 97(1).
3 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the referring CBSA/CIC.
4 Exhibit 4, Medical Report from XXXX XXXX XXXX, at pp. 17-18.
5 Ibid., Record of Arrest, at pp. 32-35.
6 Ibid., at pp. 19-30.
7 Exhibit 3, National Document Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Item 4.5, s. 3.
8 Ibid., Item 2.1, s. Executive Summary.
9 Ibid., S. 1.