Citation: 2019 RLLR 201
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: September 17, 2019
Panel: Kari Schroeder
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Jonathon W. Jurmain
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06140
Associated RPD Number(s): VB9-02524, VB9-02525, VB9-02526, VB9-02527
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002362-002367
Reasons for Decision
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the principal claimant; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the associate claimant; and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXandXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the minor claimants.
[2] The claimants are citizens of Egypt who claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[3] In rendering my decision I have applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines to this claim.
[4] The claimants are a family of five. The principal claimant is the father. The associate claimant is his wife and the minor claimants are their three daughters.
[5] The principal and associate claimant began living in Kuwait in 2003. They lived in Kuwait without issue until 2016, returning to Egypt periodically to visit family and friends. During those visits, the principal claimant’s family would continually exert pressure on the claimant to have female circumcision or FGM performed on their daughters.
[6] The claimants managed to delay the procedure and put off the family; however, in 2016 the principal claimant’s mother and elder brother told the claimants that the procedure would be performed during their next visit. For this reason the claimants stopped visiting the family and only visited the associate claimant’s family during their visit in 2016 and 2018.
[7] While living in Kuwait, the principal claimant began to express his dissatisfaction with the Egyptian government and President Sisi. He would meet with friends in cafes and restaurants to discuss his views and also made anti-government posts on social media.
[8] In a return trip to Egypt in XXXX 2016, he was stopped at the airport and interrogated for two hours about his opinions and social media comments. During his time in Egypt he was visited by authorities on other occasions. He managed to leave the country without issue with the help of a friend at the airport.
[9] The family returned to Egypt in 2018. The principal claimant’s brother found out they were in the country and called the claimant, insisting that the procedure would be done. The claimant agreed as a way to hold off the family but fled the country instead. The remaining claimants joined him in Canada at a later date.
[10] The claimant’s brother has sent several recent text messages to the principal claimant through WhatsApp telling him that the procedure must be performed.
[11] The claimants fear that FGM will be forcefully performed on their daughters if they return. They both adamantly oppose the procedure. The principal claimant also continues to post on social media and fears he will be detained by authorities if he returns.
[12] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Act for the reasons that follow.
[13] The claimants’ identities today have been established through the certified copies of their passports that I have on file.
[14] In terms of credibility, there is a presumption of truth applied to all refugee claimants unless there is a reason to doubt their allegation testimony. In this case, the testimony of the claimants raised no significant credibility concerns. There were no material inconsistencies between the claimants’ testimonies and the documentary evidence or their BOC narrative and both claimants testified in a genuine and straightforward manner and there were no hesitations in their responses.
[15] I do think the principal claimant was speculating with respect to whether his name is on a wanted list; however, I find that this does not detract from my overall assessment of their credibility.
[16] I find that their allegations are largely consistent with the country condition evidence described below.
[17] Their testimony has also been sufficiently supported by documentary evidence, including copies of the messages from the principal claimant’s brother as well as social media posts made by the claimant since arriving in Canada.
[18] I do not have copies of the posts he made in Kuwait prior to 2016 but I accept that this could have been potentially an oversight and, in any event, I do not draw a negative inference given the reliability of the testimony and the other evidence before me.
[19] I find that the claimants are reliable witnesses who genuinely fear returning to Egypt for the reasons they’ve given. Based on the nature of their fears, these allegations have links to the Convention refugee grounds of political opinion and also membership in particular social group regarding the minor claimants who are female and face gender-related violence, while their parents are members of a particular group, namely close family members of those daughters.
[20] Having accepted their allegations, I must determine whether their fear is objectively well- founded and in this case I do find that the country documentation establishes the objective risk to the claimants.
[21] The objective evidence before me supports the claimants’ allegations. Egypt has an extremely poor human rights record. According to Amnesty International, authorities use torture and other ill-treatment and enforce disappearance against hundreds of people. The crackdown on civil society escalated with non-governmental organization staff being subject to additional interrogation and travel bans.
[22] Arbitrary arrests and detentions followed by grossly unfair trials of government critics, youthful protestors, journalists and human rights defenders were routine.
[23] With respect to the social media activity of the principal claimant, I have a report before me, and this is 11.2 of the NDP, Freedom on the Net report, which states that internet freedom has been declining dramatically. The government has blocked dozens of critical new sites. Security forces have detained individuals for criticizing the government and mocking the president on social media.
[24] For example, a human rights lawyer was given a ten year sentence for a Facebook page that allegedly incited terrorism which is a term that is being used and applied to non-violent criticism of the government. Others have been arrested or sentenced for having Facebook pages that express legitimate opposition to their polices.
[25] This is also confirmed by document 2.1 which is the United States Department of State report which indicates that the government continually restricts and obstructs access to the internet and censors online content. There were credible reports that the government monitored private online communication without appropriate legal authority. Individuals were prosecuted and accused of posting insulting material.
[26] The evidence before me also corroborates the claimants’ fear of female circumcision for their daughters. The documentation shows that FGM exists in a high proportion of the female population of Egypt. According to document 2.1, FGM is illegal but remains a serious problem. 70% of girls between ages 15 and 19 have undergone FGM. According to international and local observers the government did not effectively enforce the FGM law.
[27] According to item 5.7 of the National Documentation Package the number is 87% among all women aged 15 to 49 have undergone FGM and this is in a population of approximately 95 million people which the report suggests make Egypt the country with the greatest number of women and girls who have experienced FGM of any country in the world.
[28] The practice is deeply entrenched in society with more than half the population believing the practice should continue.
[29] Therefore, based on the evidence before me, I find that that the claimants have established with sufficient, reliable evidence that they would face a serious possibility of persecution if they return to Egypt.
[30] In terms of state protection, as the state is the agent of harm in this case with respect to the persecution of individuals expressing anti-government views, and further that despite the changes in the government’s approach to FGM, the state is often ineffective in implementing the law in practice, I find that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimants in this case.
[31] With respect to an internal flight alternative, the persecution of individuals expressing anti-government views occurs throughout the country. Similarly, with respect to any internal flight alternative that would address the fear of FGM, the evidence before is that the principal claimant’s family has known through other family members and neighbours when the claimants return to Egypt and remained in Cairo. This is the internal flight alternative that I initially proposed to the claimant; however, based on the evidence, I find that the claimants would still face a serious possibility of persecution if they relocated to Cairo as the family would locate them and continue exerting pressure to have the procedure performed.
Conclusion
[32] I find that the claimants are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of Act and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts their claims.
— PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED