Citation: 2019 RLLR 196
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 17, 2019
Panel: François Ramsay
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Odette Desjardins
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB7-18982
Associated RPD Number(s): MB7-18985, MB7-19007, MB7-19008, MB7-19056, MB7-19057, MB7-19058
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 001728-001732
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claims of the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXhis wifeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXXhis in-laws, XXXX XXXX XXXXand XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who claim to be citizens of Egypt, and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[2] These claims have been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board’s Chairperson’s Instructions Governing the Streaming of Less Complex Claims at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and paragraph 170(f) of the Act.
[3] I have appointed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as designated representative for his minor child XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
[4] In rendering my reasons, I have considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution.
ALLEGATIONS
[5] The claimants allege the following:
[6] The claimants are Coptic Christians.
[7] On XXXX XXXX 2017, XXXX XXXX the daughter of the principal claimant, was the victim of a kidnapping attempt at the hands of two men, one of whom she knew as a classmate. This individual, considered to be a Muslim extremist, had already harassed her in the past.
[8] The same day, the principal claimant tried unsuccessfully to lodge a complaint with the police. When the police officer refused to record the complaint and the principal claimant insisted, the officer threatened to detain and accuse him and his daughter of being disrespectful to a police officer.
[9] The following night, XXXX and the principal claimant started receiving a number of threatening phone calls from her aggressor.
[10] Frightened, the principal claimant and his family decided to seek shelter in Alexandria.
[11] On XXXX XXXX 2017, XXXX was informed by a friend that her aggressor was looking for her.
[12] On XXXX XXXX 2017, the principal claimant was informed by his in-laws that his daughter’s aggressor had come after them. As a result, they joined the rest of the family in Alexandria.
[13] On XXXX XXXX 2017, all the claimants left Egypt for Canada.
[14] They that should they return to Egypt, they will fall victim to XXXX aggressor and his accomplice who will want to seek revenge over the family’s refusal to convert XXXX to Islam and marry her to her aggressor.
DETERMINATION
[15] I find that the claimants are “Convention refugees” as they have established a serious possibility of persecution should they return to Egypt based on the grounds in section 96.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[16] I find that the identity of the claimants as nationals of Egypt is established by the documents provided, namely their passport.
Nexus
[17] I find that the claimants have established a nexus to section 96 by reason of their religion.
Credibility
[18] Based on the documents in the file, I have noted no serious credibility issues.
[19] The claimants submitted documentary evidence in support of their claims. With respect to the evidence submitted by the principal applicants, Exhibits P-6 to P-12 and P-28 corroborate the allegations of the claimants with respect to their religious faith. Exhibits P-21 and P-22 corroborate the allegations of the principal claimant with respect to his marital status and the composition of his family. Exhibits P-13 to P-19 and P-28 corroborate the allegations of the principal claimant and his wife regarding their educational and professional background.
[20] With respect to the evidence submitted by the in-laws, Exhibit P-6 and P-9 corroborate their allegations with respect to their religious faith. Exhibits P-21 and P-22 corroborate their allegations with respect to their marital status and the composition of their family.
[21] After reviewing the documents, I have no reasons to doubt neither their authenticity, nor the truthfulness of their content.
Objective Basis of Future risR
[22] Despite some positive elements in the objective evidence, I find, based on the credibility of the allegations of the claimants, and the documentary evidence set out below, that as Christian Copts, they have established a future risk that they would be subjected to the following harm should they return to Egypt: societal and institutional intimidation and discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs, forced displacement and physical assault, as well as prosecution for blasphemy, proselytizing, and denigration of Islam.
[23] The fact that the claimants face this risk is corroborated by the documents found at tabs 1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 12.6, 12.8 of the National Documentation Package for Egypt – March 29, 2019 Version.
Nature of the Harm
[24] This harm clearly amounts to persecution.
State Protection
[25] I find that there is clear and convincing evidence before me that the state is unable or unwilling to provide the claimants with adequate protection.
Internal Flight Alternative
[26] I have considered whether a viable internal flight alternative exists for the claimants. On the evidence before me, I find that there is a serious possibility of persecution throughout Egypt. I come to that conclusion considering that, according to the above-cited documentary evidence, Coptic Christians are presently exposed to a constant risk of persecution wherever they may be located.
CONCLUSION
[27] Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the claimants are “Convention refugees”. Accordingly, I accept their claims.
(signed) François Ramsay
September 17, 2019