Citation: 2019 RLLR 167
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 17, 2019
Panel: Kenneth D. MacLean
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Imtenan Abd El Razik
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-01796
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000360-000370
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX, claims to be a citizens of Egypt, and is claiming refugee protection pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1
[2] The claimant’s allegations are set out in her Basis of Claim Form (BOC), and are summarized as follows. The claimant alleges that if returned to Egypt she faces persecution on the basis of her imputed political opinion, as the family member of a person who is perceived by the Egyptian regime as being a member or supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
[3] The claimant is married to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX was born on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, in Sharkia Egypt.2 The claimant alleges, that from June 9, 1993, until January 17, 2005, XXXX was held in detention by the security forces of the then regime of Hosni Mubarak.3 The claimant alleges that XXXX detention was politically motivated and baseless, and that he was never charged, tried, or convicted of any crimes against the Egyptian state. She alleges that XXXX was perceived to be an Islamist, and consequently, a threat to the Egyptian regime. The panel considered a judgment from a case for compensation made by the “Preliminary Court of South Cairo” in favour of the Plaintiff, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX against the Defendant, the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, in the amount of 12,000 LE plus legal fees.4
[4] The claimant alleges, that following his release from detention, she married XXXX and then arranged for him to join her in Saudi Arabia, where she had worked as a XXXX since 1998. The claimant alleges that her status in Saudi Arabia was contingent upon her having employment, which she had secured with XXXX XXXX, a member of the Saudi Royal family. Similarly, the claimant alleges that XXXX was able to secure his status on the basis of his employment by XXXX XXXX, another member of the Saudi Royal family.
[5] The claimant and XXXX have three children, all born in Saudi Arabia. The claimant alleges that her children were registered against XXXX Saudi Arabian resident permit.
[6] The claimant alleges, that in 2007 XXXX returned to Egypt briefly, in order to sell a certain property he owned, and that during his brief time in the country he was detained by Egyptian security officials on his arrival, questioned as to his whereabouts and activities, and that on his departure he was again detained and subject to questioning. The claimant alleges that XXXX swore never to return to Egypt.
[7] The claimant alleges that in 2016 she was given notice by her employer that her job was ending, because her employer and her children were relocating to the US so that her children could attend school there. Similarly, Ahmed received notice from his employer that his contract would not be renewed because she was reducing her staff. The claimant alleges that fearing a return to Egypt, she and XXXX set out to find a country to which they could relocate. Attempts to travel to New Zealand were unsuccessful, and subsequently, on or about October 24, 2016, she and her family were issued tourist visas for Brazil, to which they all travelled on XXXX XXXX, 2016.5
[8] The claimant alleges that from their arrival in Brazil, the family encountered difficulties with crime making them fearful of remaining there. The claimant alleges that it was decided to try to find another jurisdiction to which the family could flee, and that as her residency permit was still valid, she returned to Saudi Arabia on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2017. Where she was temporarily sponsored as a member of XXXX XXXX staff, as a courtesy, to enable her to find employment elsewhere. The claimant alleges that by the latter half of 2017, being unable to secure employment, and despairing from being separated from her family, she felt the need to return to Brazil for which she received a visa on November 26, 2017.
[9] The claimant alleges, that on the basis of advice received from the person helping her obtain her Brazilian visa, she applied for a visa to come to Canada, which was issued on January 8, 2018. The claimant travelled to Canada on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, where upon she made her claim for refugee protection.
DETERMINATION
[10] The panel finds that the claimant has met the onus to demonstrate that she is a Convention refugee, on the grounds of her imputed political opinion. Her claim is accepted.
Issues
[11] Identity and Credibility are always at issue, as is whether the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution. The panel also considered whether the claimant had continuing status in Saudi Arabia or had achieved status in Brazil.
Analysis
Identity
[12] The claimant’s identity and Egyptian nationality are established on the basis of her testimony, and her valid Egyptian passport.
Credibility
[13] The presumption of truthfulness applies to the claimant’s sworn testimony, unless there is a reason to doubt its truthfulness.6 Material contradictions, inconsistencies, and omissions in the claimant’s evidence, if not satisfactorily explained, are a basis upon which the RPD may find that a claimant lacks credibility. A general finding of lack of credibility on the part of the applicant may extend to all relevant information flowing from her testimony.7
[14] The panel makes a general finding that the claimant is a credible witness. Her testimony was spontaneous, complete, and consistent with the information contained in her BOC. She answered all questions put to her to the best of her ability. Her testimony was appropriately buttressed by objective documentary evidence.
Claimant’s Status in Brazil
[15] Despite having made a claim for refugee protection in Brazil, the claimant does not have any legal status in Brazil. Among the documents disclosed by the Minister, were copies of documents written in Portuguese bearing the photographs of an adult male and three children. The documents were not translated, however, each document includes the words “Solicitação de refúgio” which literally translates as “Request for Refuge.” The four documents were all issued on December 7, 2016, with validity through December 7, 2017. Also included in the document is reference to Brazilian law 9,474/1997. The panel takes notice that Brazilian law 9,474/1997 is the legislation defining the mechanisms for implementing the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, roughly the equivalent of Part Two of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act dealing with refugee protection.
[16] The claimant testified that she too had been issued this form, but it was not among the documents she brought to Canada. Given the expiry date on the forms issued to the other family members, the claimant was asked if she had renewed her claim, which she answered in the negative.
[17] The claimant’s husband XXXX gave testimony by teleconference from Brazil and was queried on his knowledge of these documents. XXXX testified, that while the claimant had been issued such a document in 2016, because she was no longer in Brazil it had not been renewed, as had the documents for himself and the children. XXXX testified that the renewal of his form was automatic, and that new ones were not issued for the children. The panel ordered the production of the most recent documents pertaining to XXXX and/or the children. Received post-hearing, the panel considered that XXXX is in possession of a Brazilian refugee claim form valid through December 7, 2018.8
[18] Asked if his claim had been the subject of a hearing, XXXX answered in the negative. Asked if the document granted the children and him any status, he testified that it allowed them to live in Brazil and rent accommodation, but did not grant the right to have bank accounts, driver’s license, or to work. Based on these documents, and the testimony of both the claimant and her husband on the subject of their possibly having status in Brazil, the panel is stratified, that at best, XXXX and the children have open refugee claims that have not been determined.
The Claimant Cannot Return to Saudi Arabia
[19] The panel takes notice of the fact that the admission of foreign workers to Saudi Arabia is regulated, and that in order to have a right to reside there a person requires an employment sponsor. The testimony of the claimant, about how she and XXXX were able to reside and work in Saudi Arabia, is consistent with the panel’s understanding of the process by which foreign nationals are able to reside in Saudi Arabia.
[20] The panel considered the “Electronic Exit Re-Entry Visa (single) with Duration issued to the claimant. The document makes reference to an Iqama, which is the term used in Saudi Arabia for a residence permit, issued to foreigners who arrive in Saudi Arabia on an employment visa. The claimant’s document indicates that her Iqama was valid through January 9, 2019, but it bears an exit before date of April 14, 2018. The document stipulates that the Visa is valid for stays up to 90 days, or until the Exit Before Date, and that the Visa holder is not allowed to re-enter Saudi Arabia if the Iqama has expired or after the Exit-Entry Visa expiry date. In this case, the claimant was granted a 60 day stay, and no dependents were included in the visa. The claimant entered Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2018, and therefore as of April 4, 2018, her right to re-enter Saudi Arabia had expired. The panel is satisfied that neither the claimant nor XXXX currently have a right to enter and remain in Saudi Arabia, and thus, there is no question of their being able to return there as neither have a valid Visa.
Well-founded Fear of Persecution
[21] On the surface, the claimant does not have a claim. If anyone should be before the panel it is XXXX but he is in Brazil.
[22] On the face of the facts before the panel, XXXX would have a clear claim for refugee protection on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution, because of his imputed political opinion. But, at what risk is the claimant? The claimant argues that the risk to her is collateral to that faced by XXXX, on the basis of their relationship and the likelihood that the regime, which is dead set on exacting retribution on the Muslim Brotherhood, would have no compunction to use the claimant in order to get to XXXX.
[23] Is there any evidence to support such a conclusion? The panel considers that prior to 2005, the claimant was largely an unknown quantity in Egypt. She had grown up and obtained her education in an uneventful way. The Egyptian state came into her life only in 1993, after she and XXXX were engaged to be wed. XXXX disappeared several weeks after their engagement, and because the claimant was not then a tier one relative (parent or spouse), she was not allowed to visit him after he was eventually located within the Egyptian security system. It was only after XXXX release in January 2005, that the couple could continue their relationship; marrying that July. The claimant testified that three days after she wed, XXXX she was taken by a security officer to the local office and questioned. The claimant testified that she felt very worried, as this was the first time she had been to such a place.
[24] The claimant remained in Egypt until the beginning of the school year, when she returned to Saudi Arabia and began preparing the documents to support his joining her there, which he did in 2006. XXXX had no difficulty leaving Egypt in 2006, but when he returned briefly to sell property in 2007, he was detained at the airport for several hours, both on his entry, and exit. The claimant testified that the local security office in Sharkia was contacted to see if there were any concerns. XXXX testified that it was because of his treatment in 2007 that he vowed never to return to Egypt, which he has not.
[25] For her part, the claimant has only returned to Egypt once since 2005. In 2010 she returned to her home to visit family, taking her children, then only two with her. Asked if anything untoward befell her on this trip, the claimant testified that she entered normally but that when she went to apply for the renewal of her permit to work outside Egypt, which had been issued the same day the last time she applied, on this occasion its renewal was delayed for three days without any explanation. Thus, despite her low profile, there is some evidence that the claimant has come to the attention of the authorities in Egypt at the time of her marriage in 2005, and again in 2010.
Objective Evidence of Human Rights Abuses and the Treatment of those Perceived to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood
[26] Both the return trips to Egypt occurred before the events of 2011, which saw Hosni Mubarak removed from office, the Muslim Brotherhood legalized and elected to parliamentary power in the 2011 general election, and ultimately, the election of Mohamed Morsi as President in June 2012. The Morsi government was brief, his being ousted by the military in a coup d’état in July 2013, following which General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi assumed power. Under the “Sisi” regime, the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned and declared a terrorist organization.9
[27] The documentary evidence confirms, that under the Sisi regime,
[H]undreds of [Muslim Brotherhood] members and supporters have been put on trial and given harsh sentences in multiple cases. Rights advocates have repeatedly criticised the mass prosecutions, saying they lack guarantees for a fair trial.”10
[28] Harsh treatment has been reported for persons alleged to be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the same document it notes that,
[A]ccording to Human Rights Watch, on 11 April 2015, “51 alleged supporters of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” were tried in a mass trial, where a judge sentenced “37 people to life in prison and confirmed the death penalties of 14 others.11
[29] In a 2017 report published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, its author reports that, since the return of military rule in 2013,
[A] new authoritarian regime has emerged in Egypt. The military establishment, security services, and intelligence agencies now rule the country and have managed to reintroduce fear as a daily constant in a nation still in dire straits.12
[30] Elsewhere in the document it relates that:
After a brief democratic opening, a new authoritarian regime has emerged in Egypt. The military establishment, security services, and intelligence agencies now rule the country and have managed to reintroduce fear as a daily constant in a nation still in dire straits.
…
Using undemocratic legal and judicial tools with a zeal unmatched even during the long authoritarian rule of former president Hosni Mubarak (1981-2011), Egypt’ s generals are closing the public space by cracking down on autonomous civil society and independent political parties, asphyxiating the practice of pluralist politics, and pushing citizens away from peaceful and active engagement in public affairs. Scare tactics and police brutality are being used for wide-scale repression. Key opposition groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a small number of political parties, human rights defenders, and young activists are under immense pressure and struggling against the yoke of the government.13
[31] Amnesty International in its 2018 “Egypt. Amnesty International Report 2017/18: The State of the World’s Human Rights” reports that:
Egypt’s human rights crisis continued unabated. The authorities used torture and other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people, and dozens were extrajudicially executed with impunity. The crackdown on civil society escalated with NGO staff being subjected to additional interrogations, travel bans and asset freezes. Arbitrary arrests and detentions followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, peaceful protesters, journalists and human rights defenders were routine. Mass unfair trials continued before civilian and military courts, with dozens sentenced to death. Women continued to be subjected to sexual and gender-based violence and were discriminated against in law and practice.14
[32] Other items in the Human Rights section of the NDP speak to a worsening human rights situation, government actors acting with impunity, the crack down on opponents of the government perceived or otherwise. Thus, the objective evidence supports a conclusion that political freedoms and human rights are being curtailed by the government and its agents, and that, in particular, members or perceived supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood are being targeted.
Expert Opinion
[33] The claimant has filed an expert report prepared for her by Dr. XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated December 21, 2018.15 The panel has considered Dr. XXXX Curriculum Vita, and is satisfied that he is qualified to provide an opinion on human rights and the political situation in Egypt.16 In his report, he provided a political context for his opinion, citing various sources, including several as found in the NDP for Egypt. His major conclusions mirror the panel’s findings in respect of the human rights and political situation in Egypt.
[34] In this context, he offers the following, in respect of the claimant and her husband:
“If the [claimant] were to return to Egypt, she would face a non-trival risk of arrest given her marriage to XXXX XXXX, who from his activity at his university and local mosque, appears to be someone who the regime viewed as supporting the [Muslim Brotherhood].”
Given his lengthy imprisonment under the Mubarak regime XXXX “faces a heightened risk of reimprisonment should he return to Egypt.”
The claimant has “suffered harassment at the hands of the Egyptian security apparatus as a result of her marriage to Mr. XXXX.”
Given the sharp increase in political repression since 2013, should she return to Egypt, “the Egyptian security services might increase their harassment of [the Claimant], perhaps even arrest her, either on accusations of belonging to a banned organization or in an attempt to pressure [XXXX] to return to Egypt.”
The fact that XXXX was released from prison during the Mubarak era “is no evidence that he is no longer of interest to the Egyptian government.”
The Egyptian authorities “have long employed a kind of ‘catch and release’ approach in which large numbers of people who are known to the security apparatus (with or without charges) are swept up whenever there is unrest.”
” … targeting family members and friends of political prisoners for persecution based purely on their association with a political prisoner has been an all too common method of operation in Egypt over decades of military rule.
” … the record before me very strongly supports of the conclusion that [the claimant] has a reasonable basis for fearing political persecution should she return to Egypt.”
CONCLUSION
[35] The panel finds, that in consideration of both the subjective and objective evidence, there is a nexus between the claimant’s situation and the Convention ground of political opinion. The panel finds that on a looking forward assessment, should the claimant be returned to Egypt, there is a serious possibility that she will face persecution at the hands of the state or state actors, owing to her being associated by marriage to a known victim of state persecution, to wit, her husband XXXX. Since the state is the likely agent of persecution, the panel need not consider either state protection or an internal flight alternative, for there would be no place in Egypt that she would be safe, from the state. Accordingly, the panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts her claim.
(signed) KENNETH D. MACLEAN
January 17, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27 as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibit 4, Passport, at p. 25.
3 Exhibit 7, at p. 9-13.
4 Exhibit 7, at p. 14-18.
5 Exhibit 1, Package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC, Egyptian passport bearing Brazilian tourist visa stamp dated November 25, 2016.
6 Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 220 (F.C.T.D.).
7 Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 238 (C.A.); 11 Imm. LR. (2d) 81 (F.C.A.) at 244.
8 Exhibit 9.
9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), item 4.5.
10 Ibid. at s. 3.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid, item 4.8.
13 Exhibit 3, (NDP) for Egypt (June 29, 2018), Item 4.8.
14 Ibid, item 2.2.
15 Exhibit 6.
16 Exhibit 6 & 7.