Citation: 2019 RLLR 181
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 26, 2019
Panel: M. Moc
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Hart A. Kaminker
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB8-26310
Associated RPD Number(s): TB8-26375, TB8-26376
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000721-000727
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of Ms. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the claimant”), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (“the minor claimants”), who claim to be citizens of Egypt and are seeking refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).1
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
[2] As the claimants are a mother and her two sons, aged fifteen and thirteen years respectively, their claims were joined pursuant to Rule 55 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules.2 Having reviewed the claimant’s divorce certificate and parental consent from the father of the two minor children, the panel assigned the claimant as the designated representative for the minor claimants. All three claimants rely on the allegations as stated in the principal claimant’s Basis of Claim, RPD file number TB8-26310.
EXPEDITED DETERMINATION
[3] Paragraph 170(f) of IRPA3 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.4 Further, subsection 162(2) of IRPA5 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.
[4] The claimant’s case was identified as one that could be processed through the RPD’s expedited process for Egyptian claims. The RPD received the claimant’s signed Certificate of Readiness6 for the expedited process on January 29, 2019. Having carefully considered the evidence in this case, the panel finds that it meets the criteria for expedited determination. This case has therefore been decided without a hearing, according to the Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division.7
ALLEGATIONS
[5] The following is a summary of the allegations as outlined in the narrative to the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC)8 form dated October 11, 2018.
[6] The claimant was born in Cairo- into a Muslim family. She had been married a total of three times. In around 2013, when her third husband insisted that they travel to Mecca for the pilgrimage, the claimant began to actively reject Islam. She started reading the Bible and watching Christian programs, and, in 2014 travelled to Italy to visit an old friend who had converted to Christianity. In Italy, the claimant attended church and took lessons to learn more about Christ, hoping to be baptized before returning to Egypt. In 2015, the claimant was unable to keep her new faith from her employer and colleagues, and quit her job as a result of the animosity. Suspicion of her conversion to Christianity spread, and she began to fear for the safety of her two sons, the minor claimants. The claimant’s family members began to pressure her to undertake the pilgrimage, and the minor claimants feared that their father, the claimant’s former spouse, might report her to the authorities for apostasy. The claimant realized that she could not practise her religion freely in Egypt. When she observed that her older son became interested in Christian teachings and expressed a wish to be baptized himself, the claimant made the decision to leave Egypt with her sons and seek safety abroad.
[7] The claimants travelled from Egypt to Canada on previously obtained tourist visas and made their claims for refugee protection on October 18, 2018 at the port of entry in St. Catharines, Ontario.
[8] The claimant fears persecution and harm at the hands of radical Islamists and state officials on the basis of religion in Egypt. She also alleges that the Egyptian authorities are unable or unwilling to protect her, and in tum her sons, as a convert from Islam to Christianity.
DETERMINATION
[9] The panel finds that the claimants are Convention refugees under section 96 of IRPA for the following reasons.
ANALYSIS
Identity—personal and national
[10] The claimants’ identities as nationals of Egypt have been established, on a balance of probabilities, by their Arab Republic of Egypt passports9 that were seized by the referring IRCC (formerly CIC) office.
Identity—religious
[11] The claimant has established her identity as a convert from Islam to Orthodox Christianity by way of the following personal documentation: her national identity card, birth, and divorce certificates, all of which indicate the holder’s religion to be Islam10; and letters from churches in Italy, Egypt, and Canada11;baptism certificate from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate in Cairo12; and photographs depicting the claimant in church with her priest.13
Credibility
[12] The panel has reviewed the claimant’s Basis of Claim (BOC),14 intake forms,15 and personal documentation disclosed,16 and has found the claimant to be credible regarding the central elements in this case – namely that she has converted from Islam to Orthodox Christianity and has actively practised her new faith as a Coptic Christian in Egypt and Canada since her official baptism ceremony, which took place on January 16, 201617 in Cairo.
[13] In reviewing the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt,18 the panel has found the claimant’s personal evidence to be consistent with the objective country conditions documents before it. As such, the panel finds that the claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, her profile as an Egyptian citizen who has converted from Islam to Christianity, and who faces a risk of persecution on the basis of religious identity.
[14] As religion forms a basis for refugee claims, as per section 96 of IRPA, the test is whether there is a serious possibility of persecution should the claimants return to Egypt. The panel finds, based on the evidence before it, that the claimants have met that test.
State protection
[15] In order to establish a claim pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA, the claimant must rebut the presumption of state protection. The claimant did not seek police protection, as the representatives of the Egyptian state were themselves the agents of persecution in this particular case. The claimant feared her family members, including her mother, brothers, and former spouse, and tried to keep her new faith from state officials and everyone else around her. She came to believe that the police would not only fail to protect her and her children in Egypt, but would actively pursue her on charges of apostasy.
[16] The panel has before it country conditions documentation indicating that
a convert to Christianity from Islam will have extreme difficulty dealing with officials and neighbours who have any idea of his or her decision … [and] Muslim converts to Christianity are regularly harassed by government officials who view their actions as a social offence against Islam tantamount to treason.19 [citations omitted]
[17] Similarly, a spokesperson from the Coptic Orthodox Church of Canada stated that
authorities will attempt to dissuade someone from converting from Islam to Christianity and may arbitrarily imprison the person alongside “dangerous criminals” if they insist on converting. A report from Amnesty International (AI) states that under the country’s emergency law, in force since the 1981 assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, there was a system of administrative detention allowing for the detention of individuals “without charge or trial.” The report indicates that such administrative detainees could include religious minorities, and “sometimes converts from Islam to Christianity.”20 [citations omitted]
[18] The panel also has before documentation indicating that Copts have complained of arise in kidnappings, armed robberies and assault following the ousting of former President Morsi.21 There are longstanding allegations that the authorities have failed to provide sufficient protection for the Coptic community, and that inadequate police response has created a climate of impunity:
The government frequently failed to prevent, investigate, or prosecute crimes targeting members of religious minority groups, which fostered a climate of impunity, according to a prominent local rights organization. The government often failed to protect Christians targeted by kidnappings and extortion according to sources in the Christian community, and there were reports that security and police officials sometimes failed to respond to these crimes, especially in Upper Egypt.22
[19] Country documentation confirms that Christians continue to be targeted by Islamic militants, attacks against Copts take place throughout Egypt, and state authorities are slow to act.23 The panel finds that the objective documentary evidence before it supports the claimant’s allegations, and that she has provided clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect her as a Coptic Christian. As such, the claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection should she return to Egypt. The panel also finds that there is not an area of the country where the claimant would be able to practise her religion freely and in safety.
[20] Given the documentary evidence before the panel, both personal and objective, the panel finds that there is a serious possibility that the claimants could face persecution and harm at the hands of Muslim extremists, including state officials, should they return to Egypt. The panel further finds that state protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to the principal claimant as a convert from Islam and practising Orthodox Christian anywhere in the country, and that this lack of protection extends to her sons, the minor claimants, as well.
CONCLUSION
[21] Based on the foregoing analysis, the panel has determined that the claimants have established that there is a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground as per section 96 of IRPA if they were to return to Egypt.
[22] The panel therefore finds that the claimants are Convention refugees and accepts the claims.
(signed) M. MOC
February 26, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended.
2 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).
3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 170(f).
4 Refugee Protection Division Rules (SOR/2012-256).
5 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended, section 162(2).
6 Exhibit 6.
7 Instructions governing the streaming of less complex claims at the Refugee Protection Division, effective January 29, 2019.
8 Exhibit 2, BOC of principal claimant, TB8-26310.
9 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.
10 Exhibit 7, personal documentation package #1.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Exhibit 8, personal documentation package #2.
14 Exhibit 2.
15 Exhibit 1, package of information from the referring CBSA/CIC.
16 Exhibit 11.
17 Exhibit 7, page 11.
18 Exhibit 5, National Documentation Package, Egypt, 29 June 2018.
19 Ibid., tab 12.7: Whether people who have converted from Islam to Christianity, particularly those converts who have been arrested, are able to obtain passports and leave the country (April 2010-November 2013). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 27 November 2013. EGY104664.E.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid., tab 12.1: Egypt. International Religious Freedom Report for 2015. United States. Department of State. 10 August 2016.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., tab 12.8: Situation of Coptic Christians, including treatment; state protection available (2014-May 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 8 May 2015. EGY105152.E.