Citation: 2019 RLLR 168
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 1, 2019
Panel: Roslyn Ahara
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Aleksandr Radin
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-03190
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-03249, TB8-03250
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000400- 000405
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (the principal claimant, hereinafter referred to as the P.C.), her minor children XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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 her 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 certificates of readiness for the expedited process on July 0, 2018.2 Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, 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 their Basis of Claim Forms (BOC). However, they can be summarized as follows.
[5] Although the P.C. was born in Kuwait, she is not a Permanent Resident there, but rather is a citizen of Egypt. She was born as a Sunni Muslim but converted to Christianity. Her children were baptized Christian. The P.C.’s in-laws disapproved of her desire to convert. In fact, her sister-in-law threatened that the family would put her in a psychiatric hospital where she would be killed.
[6] The P.C.’s husband explained that Kuwaiti authorities would not help, but in fact they might accuse her of inciting sectarian strife and destabilizing the country and she could be killed under Sharia law.
[7] On XXXX XXXX 2016, the P.C. took her children to Turkey thinking it was a secular state, but found it was not. In XXXX 2017, the P.C. returned to Kuwait to apply for a Canadian visa. It was denied, however, since she had a US visa, she entered Canada via the U.S.
DETERMINATION
[8] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees.
ANALYSIS
Identities
[9] The claimants’ identities have been established as per their Egyptian passports, birth certificates and marriage contracts. In fact, they submitted copious documents to prove that they are whom they allege to be.
Credibility
[10] In addition to the identity documents, the P.C. has submitted a certificate in which it indicates that the P.C.’s sister-in-law’s husband works with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As well, the claimants have provided country documents with respect to the treatment of individuals who convert to Christianity.
[11] The panel has reviewed the claimants’ evidence and finds that it is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Egypt.
[12] The panel finds that the claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of suffering serious harm should they return to Egypt due to their identity as Christian convert.
[13] This finding is supported by the national documentary evidence proffered by the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board).4 Objective evidence indicates that abuses of Christians were increasing even before the fall of the Mubarak regime. Christian property, including homes, businesses, and churches, have been destroyed, and Christians have been the primary target of violent sectarian attacks. Christians have been arrested and detained; they have also faced harassment, rape, mental and physical abuse, and pressure to convert to Islam; police officers have been involved in the persecution of Christians. The state has not adequately protected Christians, and has failed to prosecute perpetrators.5
[14] The United States Department of State reports that Egypt is a republic governed by an elected president. The last elections, both presidential and legislative, have been described by election monitors as having respected the national legislation on electoral matters. On the other hand, these same monitors have expressed serious reservations regarding the restrictions imposed by government authorities during the election campaigns, particularly with regard to freedom of expression and association.6 Nevertheless, despite these restrictions, the panel is of the view that the presumption of state protection is applicable in this case.7
[15] The constitution adopted in 2014 guarantees freedom of religion and expressly recognizes the right of Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, to practise their religion and to build their places of worship. It also recognizes the right to equality before the law and stipulates that discrimination and incitement to hatred are prohibited by law. It is reported, however, that the provisions of the new constitution are slow to be implemented. In fact, it is not so much the legal framework that is deficient, but rather the application by the institutions of laws and regulations that is greatly deficient.8
[16] The evidence reveals that Christians represent 5 to 10 percent of the Egyptian population. Of these, 90 percent are Coptic Christians. The documentary evidence indicates that Coptic Christians have experienced and continue to experience discrimination and intimidation because of their religious beliefs, particularly in areas where there are many Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Over time, they have also been the target of sectarian violence.9
[17] Admittedly, it is reported that this violence has decreased following the incidents that shook the Coptic community during the year 2013 and that the Head of State has continued the rapprochement he had begun with the members of the community following these incidents.10 However, it is reported that to this day, tensions, discrimination, and the threat of violence remain a constant problem. Coptic Christians have been the target of harassment and attacks on their property. It is also reported that they have been the victims of a large number of assaults of all kinds, as well as prosecution for blasphemy, proselytizing, and denigration of religion.11 Violent incidents and threats against the Copts in recent months do not seem to indicate an improvement in the situation.12
[18] In recent years, a number of international human rights bodies have denounced the behaviour of police and judicial authorities towards members of the Coptic community. Indeed, either because of lack of means, or will, or because of their own involvement, it is reported that the police and judicial authorities do not intervene to protect Coptic Christians who are victims of criminal acts. These sources also denounce the use by government authorities of “customary reconciliation” sessions rather than legal proceedings to deal with cases of violence affecting members of religious minorities. This forces the victims to drop all formal charges in order to buy peace and to avoid any legal proceedings against the aggressors. This state of affairs, as well as the slowness shown by the authorities to prosecute the crimes committed against Coptic Christians, continue to foster an atmosphere of impunity.13
[19] In light of the above, the panel finds that the claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims. In addition, the panel finds that the claimants have rebutted the presumption of state protection. They have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state is both unable and unwilling to protect them.
Internal Flight Alternative
[20] The panel finds that there is no relevant Internal Flight Alternative in Egypt for individuals such as the claimants. The panel comes to that conclusion because, according to the above-cited documentary evidence, Christians are presently exposed to a constant risk of persecution wherever they may be located.
[21] Accordingly, all claims are accepted.
(signed) ROSLYN AHARA
March 1, 2019
1 Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.
2 Exhibit 6.
3 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective September 18, 2015.
4 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 June 2018).
5 Ibid., items 12.1 and 12.8,
6 Ibid., item 2.1.
7 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 20 Imm. L.R. (2d) 85.
8 Ibid., item l2. l.
9 Ibid., item 12.1.
10 Ibid., item 12.6.
11 Ibid., item 12.6.
12 Ibid., item 2.4.
13 Ibid., items 12.1 and 12.6.