Citation: 2019 RLLR 176
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: August 20, 2019
Panel: Kenneth D. Maclean
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Deanna Karbasion
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-05242
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000625-000633
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, seeks refugee protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1
[2] The claimant’s allegations are set out most fully in her BOC and accompanying narrative statement which are summarized below.2
ALLEGATIONS
[3] The claimant was born in XXXX 1965 in what was then considered the Jordanian annexed West Bank.
[4] She has a university education – a XXXX XXXX XXXX. She married her first husband in 1988, and with him had four children born in 1989, 1992, 1997 and 2002. All the claimant’s children reside in Canada. The claimant was divorced from her first husband in 2006. The claimant alleges that upon divorce, her married surname ‘XXXX reverted to her maiden surname ‘XXXX.’
[5] Following her divorce, the claimant met XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX living in Cairo, Egypt, on the internet through Yahoo Messenger. After communicating on a frequent basis, XXXX convinced her to relocate to Egypt with her children, which she did in XXXX 2006. The claimant established herself in Cairo and her children entered school. The claimant’s eldest daughter had left home several years earlier, and eventually made her way to Canada via marriage. Over time, her remaining three children left for Canada under the sponsorship of their father, who had immigrated here in 2007. The claimant’s last child immigrated to Canada in XXXX 2017.
[6] The claimants married XXXX in August 2007, and she became an Egyptian citizen by marriage. The couple lived together sharing responsibilities and the claimant worked to have her professional qualifications recognized by the Egyptian Syndicate of Engineering Association. Successful in this endeavour, the claimant found work with a Cairo firm from January 2010 until March 2017.
[7] In March 2017, the claimant’s marriage to XXXX collapsed suddenly when she discovered that he was engaging in a same-sex relationship with a childhood friend XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX). The claimant immediately left home, and with her youngest son found rental accommodations elsewhere. The claimant made security arrangements with her new landlord.
[8] The claimant almost immediately filed for divorce, which was granted on March 16, 2017. On April 1, 2017, the claimant started a new job with another firm in Cairo, which she had applied for prior to the collapse of her marriage. From March to December 2017, XXXX periodically telephoned the claimant seeking a solution to the questions he was receiving from family and friends about why his apparently stable marriage collapsed and was over so fast. XXXX went so far as asking the claimant to visit his parents, who she alleges were fond of her, to stop them from asking questions of him. The claimant declined the suggestion, which led to XXXX become more aggressive in his demands of her, going so far as suggesting that she accept the blame for the divorce. The claimant alleges that XXXX threatened to plant drugs on her and call the police if she did not cooperate. The claimant refused to accede to XXXX continuing demands.
[9] The claimant alleges that because of societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships both XXXX and XXXX were at serious risk of social stigmatization, loss of employment or harm, even death, if their relationship was found out. She alleges that XXXX needed her not to tell anyone about his relationship with XXXX, a commitment she alleges she had given him at the time of the divorce. Fearing escalation of XXXX behavior, the claimant confided in her older children, who advised her to leave Egypt and with their help they explored exit options.
[10] The claimant alleges that she could not return to Palestine, to which she had not returned since her departure in 2006. She alleges that she would need the permission of the Israelis in order to re-enter the West Bank, and suggests that the Israelis would be suspicious of her motives for returning after such a long absence. She claims that because of her family’s history with the Israelis, she was at risk of detention upon return.
[11] Furthermore, the claimant alleges that she could not come to Canada directly, as she had been denied visitor visas twice in 2016, and once at the beginning of 2017. The claimant applied for a United States (US) visitor visa in November 2017, which was received on January 25, 2018.
[12] The claimant alleges that her feared escalated in January 2018, when in the middle of the month, she was approached in front of her place of employment by two thugs who told her that she should return XXXX telephone calls and do what he said. On January 31, 2018 she was again approached while on the way to work by the two previous thugs and a third who carried a knife. She alleges that she was threatened with an acid attack, being disappeared, or killed. After this second incident that claimant did not go to the police to file a report.
[13] After making the arrangements to leave, the claimant departed Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 flying to Buffalo via New York City, and from thence to the US/Canada boarder, where she made her claim for refugee protection the following day.
DETERMINATION
[14] I find that the claimant is a person in need of protection. I accept her claim.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[15] On the basis of the claimant’s testimony and certified true copy of her Egyptian passport,3 I am satisfied that the claimant is a citizen of Egypt. Canada does not recognize the state of Palestine, and accordingly, for the purposes of this matter, the claimant cannot be considered a citizen of the Palestinian Authority, and as such her identity as such is irrelevant.
Credibility and Subjective Fear
[16] In reaching my decision, I am guided by the IRB Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.4
[17] I find the claimant to be credible. By her testimony and documentary disclosure, I find that she has established the core elements of her claim – that she is at risk of harm at the hands of XXXX. The claimant declared that the information provided in her BOCs is complete, true, and correct. The claimant’s evidence is not internally inconsistent, inherently implausible, or contradicted by documentary evidence on country conditions in Egypt. In particular, I do not draw a negative inference on the claimant’s failure to make an asylum claims in the US, and accept her explanation for her failure to do so. Simply put, having been denied Temporary Resident Visas for Canada, and in consideration that her entire family resides in Canada, the claimant sought an alternative means of coming here to reach safety.
[18] In assessing the claimant’s credibility, I reviewed her BOC,5 port of entry (POE) intake forms,6 and the claimant-specific documents disclosed by counsel, which included copies of: documents pertaining to her Egyptian marriage and divorce, her Egyptian Identity Card, education documents, Egyptian and Jordanian professional certification documents.7
State Protection
[19] This case is different than a domestic violence case, as the direct threat against the claimant occurred after she had divorced her husband and outside the context of the marriage. She is not threatened by XXXX because she is a woman per se but rather because she knows something which if revealed would place XXXX and his companion at considerable risk of harm themselves. Presumably, the threat from XXXX would be just the same if the claimant were a man who had knowledge of his sexual activities. That being said, it was in the context of the marriage that the demands were first made on XXXX to accept the blame for the failure of the marriage demands that continued after the divorce, and which then turned into direct threats of violence at the hands of third parties.
[20] What turns this into a gender-based issue related to domestic violence is that the Egyptian authorities regard the threat against the claimant in the context of a family matter. It is the claimant’s evidence that when she had previously approached the police of a matter of sexual harassment against her daughter, they had told her to deal with things from within the family.8 Thus, it was from the perspective that the threats made against her by her ex-husband would not be taken seriously, because she was a woman, that she did not seek the protection of the state.
[21] The documentary evidence in the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, in respect of the police response to domestic violence and violence against women in general, would tend to bare out the claimant’s concern. A report by the United Kingdom (UK) Home Office, in respect of the response of the police and courts in Egypt to violence against women, relates that:
‘Civil society organizations reported police pressure not to pursue charges and fear of societal reprisal actively discouraged women from going to police stations to report crimes, resulting in a very small number of cases being investigated or effectively prosecuted. NGOs estimated the prevalence of rape was several times higher than the rate reported by the government.’9
[22] The Home Office document further relates that:
‘ …currently very few women go ahead with legal complaints against their attackers or report attacks to the police. The problems of social stigma and lack of trust in the security forces mean that sexual violence in particular is unlikely to be reported to the police, including to the new Violence Against Women (VAW) unit. According to a 2013 study, 93.4 per cent of respondent survivors of sexual harassment said they did not request help from security forces at the scene of the incident. The most common reasons cited by survivors included: “I feared for my reputation”, “I thought there was no text in the law to penalize harassment”, and “I was also scared from harassment by policemen.”10
[23] Other information in the NDP for Egypt reveals that violence against women is reported as being socially legitimized, it is surrounded by a culture of silence, largely imposed by the family. Moreover, according to Amnesty International, Egyptian law does not provide the victims with adequate protection.11 Protection mechanisms are very few, and are considered to be essentially ineffective. This is, in part, due to the existence of provisions within the Penal Code that excuse acts of violence that have been committed in good faith in accordance with Sharia Law; the requirements imposed on individual victims of assault to have to produce multiple witnesses. This is a very difficult condition to meet for female victims of violence, given the societal attitude toward women and violence, and the reported often dismissive or abusive attitude of officials who receive the complaints.
[24] In that context, given also the reported reluctance of women to report violence because of shame, fear of retaliation against them and their children, and community pressure, violence against women virtually goes unpunished, allowing the offenders to act in almost total impunity. An Amnesty International Report from January 2015 relates that:
The inadequate and discriminatory legal and policy framework, coupled with the Egyptian authorities’ failure to punish or address the underlying causes of violence against women and girls, has resulted in a culture of impunity in which sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls is pervasive. Such violence affects all aspects of their lives, in the family and the public sphere.12
[25] Thus, there is a credible basis for the claimant’s reluctance to seek state protection, and I find that, in these particular circumstances, it would not be forthcoming.
Internal flight alternative
[26] The claimant cannot live safely in Egypt. I asked the claimant why she could not go to live in Alexandria and be safe. She testified that she could not be safe anywhere in Egypt because she was a divorced woman, a Palestinian, and because XXXX had the means and resources to find her. The claimant’s evidence is that after she had left XXXX, she sought out a new job, and that after having started at this new job she witnessed XXXX sitting in his automobile watching her as she left her place of employment. She testified that XXXX, who has connections with Egyptian immigration authorities in the context of his job as a travel agent, would know if and when she returned to Egypt.
[27] I consider that, even now, the claimant continue to pose a threat to XXXX in that it is available to her to inform on him. He has demonstrated his intention in the past, and it is reasonable to assume that he remains highly motivated to prevent his secret from becoming public. Therefore, it is more likely than not, that if she returned to Egypt, he would try to silence her as a way of preserving his own safety.
[28] I also consider that as a divorced woman, with no immediate means of financial support, and no man to protect her, the claimant would be targeted by those who adhere faithfully to the Islamic beliefs in respect of women and their societal role. The claimant is demonstrably westernized; she dresses as a Westerner, does not wear the veil, and as an engineer she has lived and worked outside the usual social norms that constrain many women in Arab countries. I have considered the Response to Information Request (RIR) entitled Egypt: Treatment of women who do not conform to Muslim practices and traditions, including wearing a veil (head covering), in rural and urban areas; state protection available to victims of mistreatment,13 and find that my conclusion with respect to the societal treatment of women in Egypt are justified.
[29] Thus, whether in respect of the threat posed by XXXX, or the threat posed by Egyptian society, I find that the claimant would be at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution in all parts of the country.
CONCLUSION
[30] While this case does not fit squarely as a domestic violence claim, it originated from within the context of a marriage, and the agent of harm is the claimant’s ex-husband. Consequently, I have analyzed the risk faced by the claimant from the perspective of domestic violence, but more broadly as violence against women in Egypt in general.
[31] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a strong basis for the claimant’s subjective fear of harm, and that the objective evidence supports a conclusion that her fears are well-founded, that state protection would not be forthcoming, and that, in her particular circumstances, she has no safe place to live in Egypt.
[32] I therefore find that she is a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1)(b) of IRPA, and I accept her claim.
(signed) KENNETH D. MACLEAN
August 20, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, sections 96 and 97(1).
2 Exhibit 2, Basis of Claim Form.
3 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC, Certified True Copy of Passport.
4 Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution: Update, Guideline Issued by the Chairperson Pursuant to Section 65(3) of the Immigration Act, IRB, Ottawa, November 25, 1996, as continued in effect by the Chairperson on June 28, 2002, under the authority found in section 159(l)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
5 Exhibit 2, BOC.
6 Exhibit 1, Package of Information from the Referring CBSA/CIC.
7 Exhibit 5, Identity Documents received January 9, 2019, at pp. 28-76.
8 Exhibit 6, Claim Documents received January 9, 2019, at p. 36.
9 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (29 March 2019), item 1.4.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., item 2.2.
12 Ibid., item 5.6.
13 Ibid., item 5.1.