Citation: 2019 RLLR 188
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 5, 2019
Panel: P. Gueller
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Namita Dass
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: TB9-01279
Associated RPD Number(s): TB9-01335
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 000838-000848
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a citizen from Egypt. The associate claimant, XXXX XXXX (a.k.a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), is a citizen of Iran. Both are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97of the Immigration Protection Act (the Act).
[2] In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution related to the associate claimant’s claim.
DETERMINATION
[3] I find both claimants to be Convention Refugees as they have established a well-founded fear of persecution based on a Convention ground, namely they are convention refugees based on the convention ground of religion.
IDENTITY
[4] The principal claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt and the associate claimant’s identity as a national of Iran are established, on a balance of probabilities, through their testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely their passport.
PRINCIPAL CLAIMANT ALLEGATIONS
[5] The principal claimant alleges he cannot return to Egypt because he would be persecuted by the Salafists as he is a Muslim Sunni married to the Associate claimant, who belongs to a different religion, as she is a Muslim Shia.
ANALYSIS
Credibility
[6] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. I find the principal claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities.
[7] The principal claimant testified in a straightforward and credible manner. His oral testimony was consistent with his Basis of Claim form (BOC) and he provided documentary evidence in support of his allegations:
- Birth, divorce and Marriage certificate
- University degree
- Letter from his employer
- Affidavit from Maspero Youth Foundation For Development and Human Rights
[8] The claimant testified that he married his wife in Kuwait and despite having different religions they lived without complications. Both claimants had temporary work visas in Kuwait.
[9] The claimants have a Canadian born son. The principal claimant stated that they came to Canada in XXXX 2017 for tourism and the associate claimant was pregnant. She had some medical complications and was advised not to travel. Consequently, their son was born in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2017. After that, both claimants returned to Kuwait.
[10] In XXXX 2018 they went to Iran to visit his wife’s family. They were detained at Shiraz Airport and both were questioned about his Egyptian nationality, his religion and whether he was spreading his religion into Iran. He also testified that they were monitored in Iran and were called to report to the police station to be interrogated about his activities in Iran. After the last interrogation at the police station, he left Iran the following day.
[11] He testified that he had a temporary work visa in Kuwait. In September 2018, his employment was terminated and he was not able to stay because his visa expired with the termination of his employment. Consequently, they returned to Egypt to look for jobs.
[12] He testified that upon returning to Egypt, The Salafists, an extremist Muslim group in Egypt, started to threaten him because he was married to a woman that is from Iran and Shia. He also testified that he went to the police to report the incidents, however the police did not want to issue a report and he was told by the police to divorce his wife and amend things with the Salafists. The claimant testified that after living two months in Cairo, he moved to 6th of October City, to escape the harassment and persecution.
[13] The claimant testified that after one week of living in 6th of October City, the Salafists appeared outside his home shouting that he was a disbeliever and threating him, asking him to come outside. He called the police for protection, however, when the police arrived the claimant was the one that was detained by the police. After he was taken to the police station, his wife called a friend for help. Their friend was able to hide her and their son in Alexandria.
[14] The claimant stated that he remained in detention at the police station and was released the following morning. He went back to his home and could not find his wife and son and became terrified thinking that his family could have been killed by the extremists. Because he was found by the extremists despite having moving to 6th of October City, he realized that they would be able to find him everywhere, because they are a group with connections over the whole country. He started to look for help, and a friend referred him to the Youth Foundation For Development and Human Rights, where he was advised to leave Egypt as soon as possible and go to Canada because his son has a Canadian passport and they had valid Canadian visas.
[15] The claimant also testified that he would not have been able to move to Iran, his wife’s country of nationality, because he will be persecuted for his nationality and religion. In addition, a man cannot obtain Iranian nationality through his Iranian wife.
[16] He testified that they left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and arrived in Canada the same day.
[17] I also note, that the documentary evidence in the NDP concerning the treatment of different groups of Muslims in Egypt is that:
“the predominant school of Islam practiced in Egypt is Sunni. While Egypt also has a number of smaller Muslim groups, including Ahmadis, Quranists and Shi’a, these communities have faced marginalization, discrimination and persecution due to widespread misunderstandings about their faith, with their practitioners frequently cast as threats to national stability and Sunni beliefs. Given the prominent role that powerful religious bodies such as AlAzhar continue to play in Egyptian society, as well as the strong support they command from many members of the country ‘s security forces and judiciary, non-Sunni Muslim groups still face a range of restrictions in their ability to freely practice and express their faith”
…
“Another instance where blasphemy charges have been used was the case of Amr Abdalla, a Shi’a activist who was arrested in November 2013 at the Imam Hussein mosque as he attempted to commemorate Ashura and subsequently detained in Gamalia police station, when a blasphemy misdemeanor was filed against him. In February 2014, he received a five-year prison sentence for religious blasphemy. The judge argued that while freedom of belief is constitutionally guaranteed, if is not absolute as it should not lead to ideas. thoughts or beliefs that ‘oppose the rules and foundation of religion, revealed law or morals. ”
…
“Hate speech against Shi’a is widespread. Its sources vary from prominent religious institutions, such as the Ministry of Endowment and Al-Azhar, to the country’s media. The latter has regularly showcased articles promoting hatred against the community, including accusations that Shi’a are ‘traitors’ and promoting foreign agendas.”
[18] According to information in the NDP, Shia Muslims and their supporters are being persecuted, marginalized and harassed in Egypt. On a balance of probabilities, I accept the claimant’s allegations that he can be personally persecuted for being married to a Shia woman. In addition, the NDP also states that interfaith marriages are not accepted by extremists, like the Salafists, and the majority of the Sunni Muslim community; and are not permitted under the Sharia law, unless the woman converts to be a Sunni Muslim.
[19] For all these reasons, considering the claimant’s credible allegations and documentary evidence before me, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the claimant faces more than a mere possibility of persecution if he returns to Egypt because of his interfaith marriage.
State protection
[20] The claimant stated that he was harassed during his time in Cairo, and despite moving to 6th of October City, the Salafist were able to find him. Moreover, when the Salafist came to his home to harass him, despite calling the police for protection, he was the one that was detained because of the Salafist’s allegations.
[21] I find that the claimant has provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection.
[22] The information in the NDP is that Shia supporters do not find protection from the authorities or the judicial system:
“Another instance where blasphemy charges have been used was the case of Amr Abdalla, a Shi’a activist who was arrested in November 2013 at the Imam Hussein mosque as he attempted to commemorate Ashura and subsequently detained in Gamalia police station, when a blasphemy misdemeanor was filed against him. ln February 2014, he received a five-year prison sentence for religious blasphemy. The judge argued that while freedom of belief is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute as it should not lead to ideas, thoughts or beliefs that ‘oppose the rules and foundation of religion, revealed law or morals’. The judge in his reasoning stated that the defendant was guilty of ‘propagating thought and belief that contravenes that which the overwhelming majority of Egyptians and Egyptian society belong to and believe.’97
ln the same manner, possession of Shi’a publications has been used to indict Shi’a believers of religious blasphemy. In May 2015, “‘Mahmoud Dahroug, a dentist from the Dakahlia governorate, received a reduced sentence of six months in prison for ‘religion blasphemy’ for the possession of publications that contained Shi’a doctrines. While a number of violations took place during the arrest and interrogation, he was charged with blasphemy and accused of carrying publications that threatened national security.” 981
…
“Rather than protecting Shi’a worshippers, security forces have continued to cooperate with groups who actively incite against them: in September 2017, for instance, a leading anti-Shi’a agitator pledged to report Shi’a visiting the Imam Hussein Mosque to security forces to prevent them practicing their rituals. This is despite the face that members of the Coalition have engaged in a number of attacks against Shi’a, including an attack on 23 June 2013 against a group of Shi’a practicing a ritual in a private home in Abu Musallim that saw a large crowd, led by Salafist preachers, launch an assault with stones and Molotov cocktails.
Police, having attempted unsuccessfully to halt the attack, withdrew and four Shi’a men were subsequently beaten to death while others, including women and children, were injured. In June 2015, convictions were finally handed out to 23 people (10 in absentia) for the deaths, each of whom received 14-year sentences, while eight others were acquitted.102 However, there has been no prosecution of those who contributed to the incitement against the victims, including the Salafist preachers who had engaged in weeks of hate speech prior to the attack.”2
[23] I find therefore, on a balance of probabilities, that according to evidence before me, authority protection may not be operational in Egypt. I therefore find, on a balance of probabilities, that state protection would not be adequate for the principal claimant if he were to return to Egypt.
IFA
[24] Based on the claimant’s testimony and NDP documentary evidence, Salafist groups are all over the country, in addition the authorities may not be able to protect him or may not take his requests for protection seriously. Concurrently, the NDP suggests that there are situations where the police had to withdraw because their interventions were unsuccessful.
[25] Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, there is no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimant. The evidence suggests that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon return to Egypt based on religion, him being married to a Shia woman.
[26] Therefore, his claim is accepted. The principal claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee.
ASSOCIATED CLAIMANT ALLEGATIONS
[27] The associated claimant alleges she cannot return to Iran because she would be persecuted by the authorities because she is a Muslim Shia and married to the principal claimant, who is a Sunni Muslim.
ANALYSIS
Credibility
[28] The determinative issue in this claim is credibility. I find the associated claimant to be a credible witness on a balance of probabilities.
[29] The associated claimant testified in a straightforward and credible manner. Her oral testimony was consistent with her Basis of Claim form (BOC) and she provided documentary evidence in support of her allegations:
- Birth, divorce and Marriage certificate
- University degree
- Letter from his employer
[30] The evidence on the NDP is that Sunni Muslims are being harassed, arrested and threatened in Iran:
“According to sources wishing to remain anonymous, 15 Arabs who converted from Shia to Sunni Islam were sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment on 21 February 2013. They were reportedly detained in an unknown location for 21 days after their arrests on 17 January 2012…. They were reportedly charged with spreading propaganda against the system by promoting Wahhabism and Salafism, holding group prayers, questioning the official religion of the country, producing and distributing deviant books, communicating with salafist and takfirist groups (groups accusing others of apostasy) and participating in the religious courses of salafist and takfirist elements.3
[31] The associate claimant’s testimony was that she and her husband were detained and interrogated at the airport and at the police station; and, also followed and monitored during their stay in Iran, because her husband is a Sunni Muslim. Therefore, she was scared thinking that she was going to be arrested and will disappear like many other people who are accused of becoming a Sunni Muslim convert, or a supporter of their religion. The claimant also stated that her mother asked her not to come back. As a consequence, subsequent to the experience with the authorities and the memory of her detention and harassment from her teenage years, she left Iran and have not returned. Her credible testimony is supported by the evidence in the NDP regarding authorities persecuting Sunni Muslims.
[32] Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, I find, that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant would be persecuted if she returns to Iran, because she is married to a Sunni Muslim.
State protection
[33] Through the associate claimant’s credible testimony, she has established that the authorities persecuted her when she was visiting Iran because she is married to a Sunni Muslim. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the associate claimant has provided clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of state protection.
[34] I also note, that the documentary evidence in the NDP concerning the treatment of Muslims in Iran that:
“The July 2014 USDOS report notes that during the reporting year 2013, “[t]here were reports of arrests and harassment” of members of the Sunni community including “Sunni clerics and congregants “, noting that “[s]ecurity officials continued to raid prayer sites belonging to Sunnis”. The same source also quotes human rights organisations as reporting “several instances of due process violations” against Sunnis.”
The NDP also notes that “Among the sources consulted by ACCORD, no further information could be found on the treatment of persons living in mixed religious marriages.”4 Nevertheless, according to the evidence in the NDP about the persecution and harassment of the Sunni Muslims in Iran by the authorities, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is more than a mere possibility that the associate claimant will be persecuted by the authorities because she is married to a Sunni Muslim if she returns to Iran.
[35] Therefore, on a balance of probabilities, considering the claimant’s credible allegations and the documentary evidence before me, I find that state protection would not be adequate for the associate claimant if she were to return to Iran, because the agent of persecution is the Iranian state.
IFA
[36] Based on the claimant testimony and NDP documentary evidence, I find, on a balance of probabilities, there is no viable internal flight alternative (IFA) for the claimant. The evidence suggests that there is a serious possibility that the claimant would be persecuted upon return to Iran based on religion for being married to a Sunni man.
[37] Therefore, her claim is accepted. The associate claimant is recognized as a Convention refugee.
CONCLUSION
[38] I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is more than a mere possibility that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, will be persecuted if he returns to Egypt and that the associate claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, will be persecuted if she returns to Iran, because of their religion, based on their interfaith marriage.
[39] Therefore, both claimants are recognized as Convention refugees.
(signed) P. GUELLER
November 5, 2019
1 Egypt NDP 13.2 page 19
2 Ibid
3 Exhibit 3
4 Ibid