Citation: 2019 RLLR 203
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 15, 2019
Panel: Kerry Cundal
Counsel for the Claimant(s): N/A
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-01027
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002797-002801
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a citizen of Egypt who is claiming refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”).1 The claimant’s identity has been established by a copy of her passport.2
ALLEGATIONS
[2] The claimant fears return to Egypt because she fears religious persecution by Muslim extremists. The claimant is a Christian. The claimant received threats by Muslim extremists calling her “infidel” and “enemy of Allah” because she was hosting Bible studies in her home for women. The claimant also faced harassment because she refuses to wear a hijab, including being pushed to the ground. The claimant left Egypt on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018 and arrived in Canada on the same day. Further details are highlighted in her Basis of Claim (BOC) forms.3 The claimant signed her BOC on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.4 The panel has reviewed and applied the Chairperson’s Guideline on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution5 in this decision.
Well-Founded Fear of Persecution and Risk of Harm
[3] The claimant provided a detailed narrative and documents supporting her Christian religion.6 The objective evidence supports the claimant’s fear of religious persecution by Muslim extremists in Egypt. The evidence indicates that there has been an increase in sectarian violence against Christians.7 The evidence indicates that there have been violent attacks against Christians by Muslim extremists throughout Egypt including in Cairo and in Alexandria.8 The panel finds that the claimant has established a nexus to religion because of her Christian faith and that she would face more than a mere possibility of persecution if she returns to Egypt.
State Protection
[4] The objective evidence indicates the following regarding state protection in Egypt:
The government inconsistently punished or prosecuted officials who committed abuses, whether in the security services or elsewhere in government. In most cases the government did not comprehensively investigate human rights abuses, including most incidents of violence by security forces, contributing to an environment of impunity.9
[5] A Human Rights Watch report dated March 13, 2017 indicates that Christians who have been targeted by Muslim extremists report that Egyptian security forces are “apathetic” in their response to assist Christians.10 Further reports indicate that:
The authorities continued to violate the right to freedom of religion by discriminating against Christians. In August, security forces prevented dozens of Coptic Christians from praying in a house in Alforn village in Minya governorate, citing reasons of security. There was continued impunity for sectarian attacks on Christian communities, and the authorities continued to rely on customary reconciliation and settlements agreed by local authorities and religious leaders. Amid this impunity, violence by non-state actors against Christians increased significantly.11
[6] The general security context in Egypt is uncertain at this time:
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who first took power in a July 2013 coup, continues to govern Egypt in an authoritarian manner, though the election of a new parliament in late 2015 ended a period of rule by executive decree. Serious political opposition is virtually nonexistent, as both liberal and Islamist activists face criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Terrorism persists unabated in the Sinai Peninsula and has also struck the Egyptian mainland, despite the government’s use of aggressive and often abusive tactics to combat it.12
[7] Further evidence provides a general overview of the fragility of the current regime and lack of operationally effective state protection in Egypt:
In the first several months of 2017, Egypt has witnessed a number of events that have challenged the country’s stability and security, economic development, and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. The Egyptian government has continued its repercussion of public space, even going so far as to physically close the offices of the El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence and Torture in early February. The country is no more stable, with terror groups and the Egyptian state engaged in a war of propaganda narratives. The Islamic State’s affiliate in mainland Egypt has targeted churches on Palm Sunday and announced its ”emir” in Islamic State media. The Islamic State’s Wilayat Sinai also is increasingly targeting the Christian population as it continues to claim control over urban areas in North Sinai even as Egypt’s army and tribal militias commit violence against unarmed residents of Sinai. A year ahead of scheduled elections, human rights lawyer and rumored presidential candidate Khaled Ali has been detained by security forces and smeared in pro-regime media as fomenting dissent.13
[8] Based on the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that there is no operationally effective state protection available to the claimant in Egypt at this time.
Internal Flight Alternative (IFA)
[9] In Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the Court of Appeal held that, with respect to the burden of proof, once the issue of an internal flight alternative was raised, the onus is on the claimant to show that she does not have an IFA.14 The burden placed on a claimant is fairly high in order to show that the IFA is unreasonable. In the Federal Court of Appeal decision of Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) in 2001, it was stated that the test is to show that the IFA is unreasonable.15 That test requires nothing less than the existence of conditions that would jeopardize the life and safety of the claimants in relocating to a safe area. Actual and concrete evidence of adverse conditions is required. The panel must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that (1) the claimant would not be subject personally to a danger of torture, or to a risk of life or a risk of cruel and unusual punishment or face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA and (2) that conditions in that part of the country are such that it would be objectively reasonable, in all the circumstances, including those particular to the claimant, for her to seek refuge there.
[10] The objective evidence provides examples of targeting of Christians with impunity in Cairo and Alexandria. For example, in December 2016, an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) affiliated suicide bomber killed 29 people in an attack against a Christian church, Saints Peter and Paul Church in Cairo.16 Reports of bombings at Christian churches also occurred in Alexandria in April 2017 during Palm Sunday at St. Mark’s Cathedral.17 The same report indicates that “Muslims opposed to church construction or renovation, even when legally authorized, continued to commit violence against churches and Christian-owned properties in various locales.”18 Given the general insecurity in Egypt and the successful violent attacks against Christians in Cairo and Alexandria by Muslim extremists, the panel finds that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant in her particular circumstances as she would not be free to worship or practice her Christian faith without fear of violent attacks perpetrated with impunity by Muslim extremists.
CONCLUSION
[11] For the foregoing reasons, the panel determines that the claimant is a Convention refugee under section 96 of the Act. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada therefore accepts her claim.
(signed) KERRY CUNDAL
January 15, 2019
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
2 Exhibit 1.
3 Exhibit 2.
4 Exhibit 2.
5 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, Ottawa, Canada, March 1993, updated November 1996.
6 Exhibits 1 and 2.
7 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), June 29, 2018, Item 1.7.
8 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 1.7.
9 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.
10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.5.
11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.2.
12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.4.
13 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.5.
14 Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.).
15 Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.).
16 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.
17 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.
18 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 12.1.