Citation: 2019 RLLR 195
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: March 27, 2019
Panel: Ludmila Pergat
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Razgar Hasan
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-09759
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-09787
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001563-001571
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a XXXX-year-old female and a national of Egypt.
[2] Her sister, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-years old, was born in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Her parents returned to Egypt the following year. Children of foreigners born in Dubai don’t have the rights of local citizenship and automatically assume the nationality of the father. Foreign children are automatically considered nationals; however, they must renounce the citizenship of their parents, who are Egyptian. The UAE does not permit dual nationality.
[3] Given that XXXX has not renounced her Egyptian citizenship, she is an Egyptian national.
[4] Both Claimants allege to have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds being members of a particular social group, that of women.
IDENTITY
[5] The Claimant’s identities were established by a copy of their Egyptian passports submitted by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). Based on the passports provided by CIC and the written testimony of the Claimants, in the narrative of their BOC, the Tribunal is satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the Claimants have established their identities.
DETERMINATION
[6] The Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) determines that the Claimants, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, are “Convention refugees” as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and “persons in need of protection” as defined in section 97(1)[8] of that law.
ALLEGATIONS
[7] The principal Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, makes the following allegations in the narrative of her Basis of Claim Form (BOC).
[8] Her grandfather was an Imam of the Mosque in Alexandria. Her father is a very conservative Muslim man. He is a project manager and makes a good living. The principal Claimant attended a private school in the UAE since 2007. The family moved to the UAE with them. Her father is very strict, made her wear a hijab since she was twelve and made her memorize the Quran. The Claimant came to Canada in 2016 to attend University to study engineering, which she did not want to do, nor was she successful in the studies, but did so to stay away from her domineering father.
[9] The Claimant visited Egypt in XXXX 2015 when their maternal grandmother passed away. During that visit she was sexually assaulted on the street. She said that someone put his hand on her breast and exposed himself to her. She did not go to the police. She returned to Canada with her mother and sister.
[10] The principal Claimant has been seen by a XXXX since then, and suffers from several disorders such as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. She is being treated with several medications and is seeing a XXXX at Carleton University which she presently attends. At present her education is being paid for by her older brother since her father stopped paying all expenses when she stopped studying Engineering. Her father wanted her to return to Egypt for one month. She learned from close relatives and friends that he intends to force her to marry her cousin. The principal Claimant told her father that she refuses to return to Egypt. Her father was furious and said that he would cut her off financially, which he did in 2017. He also said that he would do anything in his power to have her return to Egypt.
[11] The principal Claimant fears returning to Egypt. She would have to live with her father and marry her cousin, in the marriage arranged by her father.
[12] The Claimant XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the principal Claimant’s younger sister, testified that she will be harmed by her father and his family because she stands by her sister. Her younger years mirror that of her sister where it concerns her father, his expectations of his daughters and rigid upbringing. She was also assaulted, in her case, by a taxi driver when she returned for her grandmother’s funeral. Since her coming to Canada to study, after her visit to Egypt for her grandmother’s funeral, her father has tried to have her convince her sister, the principal Claimant, to return to Egypt. When she refused, he became very angry and told her that he would no longer support the younger Claimant financially. He told the younger sister that he learned from his friends that she has registered to study psychology instead of engineering, removed her hijab and smoked cigarettes. He insisted that they return to Egypt.
[13] Both Claimants are being followed by a XXXX for their issues arising from past abuses by their father and the pressures to conform to his strict expectations.
[14] Both Claimants feared returning to Egypt to their father. They knew that they would face arranged marriages, be locked in his home and made to wear the hijab again.
[15] They claimed refugee protection in Canada in August 2017.
ANALYSIS
[16] In analyzing this claim, the Tribunal considered the Chairperson’s Guidelines for Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender Related Persecution. The Tribunal is cognizant that female refugee claimants may have difficulties in demonstrating that their claims are credible. As such, the Tribunal has considered and applied these guidelines during the hearing, as well as in assessing the weight given to both the oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal.
[17] The testimony of both Claimants’ was very difficult and emotional, however, spontaneous and straightforward. The principal Claimant’s highly emotional state was supported by medical reports submitted by her family physician1 and her XXXX.2 The XXXX report3 states that the Claimant suffers from both XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Her sister is severely affected by her older sister’s (principal Claimant) fragile state.
[18] The Tribunal took into account the Claimants’ conditions medical and fragile conditions during the hearing, applying the principles of the Chairperson’s Guidelines for women refugee claimants. The Tribunal did consider that both Claimants are educated young women and have lived away from their father for many years. However, in this particular case, the Tribunal believes that the strict upbringing that they had from a very conservative father, who supported them financially all their lives, caused serious and permanent fear of being forced to live a life that they did not experience in the past few years living as Western women, able to make their own choices and decisions. They are Muslim women and embrace their faith but fear the life of a Muslim woman in an ultra-Muslim society in Egypt.
[19] The central element of this claim is whether the two Claimants had their human rights violated by their father. Is there is serious possibility that their basic human rights will be violated by their father and/or other relatives should they return to Egypt?
[20] The Tribunal believes that, based on the Claimants’ narratives in their BOCs and their testimony at the hearing, the Claimants face not only a serious possibility but the probability of having these rights violated.
[21] XXXX father has already arranged a marriage for her with her cousin, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Tribunal believes that the principal Claimant would have no option but to marry her cousin should she return to Egypt. The Claimant has spent all of her life in school studying. She has lived a life of never having to work or think about supporting herself. Consequently, given that her father has cut off her financial support, if she were to return to Egypt, she would have to return to her father and be forced into the marriage with her cousin.
[22] The expectation of their father was that they get the best education that he can afford and that they return to Egypt to marriages arranged by him.
[23] In Vidhani v. M.C.I.,4 the Court held that “women who are forced into marriages against their will have had a basic human right violated.”
[24] The Tribunal believes that in this particular case and under these particular circumstances, the Claimant’s basic human rights are being and will further be violated.
[25] Based on the younger Claimant’s narrative in her BOC and her testimony at the hearing, the Tribunal believes that she will also have her basic human rights violated by being forced into an arranged marriage by her father.
[26] The Tribunal also believes that both Claimants were sexually assaulted when they returned to Egypt for their grandmother’s funeral in 2015 and that experience left them terrified of returning to Egypt.
[27] Considering that the evidence submitted in the BOC form is deemed true as sworn evidence and is not contradicted by any other evidence submitted in this case, in the Tribunal’s view, the Claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, the credibility of their allegations as well as the existence of a subjective fear.
State Protection
[28] Egypt was considered in 2014 by more than 300 gender experts to be “the worst country in the Arab world to be a woman”5 and there is no evidence to the effect that the situation has in any way improved since.
[29] 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. 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 – a very difficult condition to meet for women 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.
[30] 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.6
[31] Violence, including sexual and domestic violence, against women is universal and irrelevant when determining whether rape and other gender-specific crimes constitute forms of persecution. The real issues are whether the violence, experienced or feared, is a serious violation of a fundamental human right for a Convention ground and in what circumstances can the risk of that violence be said to result from a failure of State protection.
[32] Based on the declarations of the Claimants, the Tribunal is of the opinion, that they have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims and that there is clear and convincing evidence that the state of Egypt is unable and unwilling to protect them for the following reasons.
[33] The Claimants are perceived, based on their actions, to oppose Islam. They are two young women who have spent most of their young lives and all of their adult lives pursuing an education in Dubia, UAE, and Canada. They have gone against the strict rules by which Muslim women in Egypt must abide and what their father believes in and insists upon. They put aside their core traditions such the wearing of the hijab and adopted western accepted practices such as smoking, which are against the Muslim values. These actions subjected them not only to their father’s wrath, their relatives and friends but also to the religious faction and government that perceives them as infidels and will not protect them.
[34] The Tribunal believes that in this particular case, under these particular circumstances, the Claimants have established that they will not be safe anywhere Egypt.
[35] In light of all of the above, the Tribunal finds that the Claimants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is an objective basis to their claims. The Tribunal further 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
[36] The Tribunal finds that there is no relevant Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Egypt for individuals such as the Claimants.
[37] As single women with no means of financial support and no man to protect them, they would be targeted by those who adhere faithfully to the Muslim belief and would condemn them for being infidels. As they testified, they would be seen as prostitutes and could be the victims of honour killings. The Tribunal’s conclusion is based on the fact that the risk of persecution emanates not only from their father and his extended family in Egypt but also from State agents, notably the clerics and religious police. That State authority extends to the whole country.
[38] The Tribunal is of the opinion that the Claimants would be at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution in all parts of the country.
CONCLUSION
[39] After having considered both oral and written testimony submitted, the Tribunal believes that the Claimants have discharged their burden of proof.
[40] Based upon the above analysis, the Tribunal determines that principal Claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXand her sister XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX are “Convention refugees”, as defined in section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and “persons in need of protection” as defined in section 97(1)[8] of that law.
(signed) LUDMILA PERGAT
March 27, 2019
1 Document 4, item C-10.
2 Document 4, item C-11.
3 Ibid, note 2.
4 Vidhani v. M.C.I., [1995] 3 F.C. 60 (T.D.).
5 Document 3, National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt (30 June 2017), item 5.1.
6 Document 3, NDP for Egypt (30 June 2017), item 5.6.