Categories
All Countries Egypt

2019 RLLR 206

Citation: 2019 RLLR 206
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: January 21, 2019
Panel: Douglas Cryer
Counsel for the Claimant(s): El-farouk Khaki
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: VB8-06095
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 002994-002998

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claim of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as 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

[2]       This claim has been decided without a hearing, according to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims2 and subsection 170(f) of the Act.

[3]       In deciding the claim, the panel has considered all of the evidence before it including the Basis of Claim (BOC) form,3 the referral documents,4 the country of origin information contained within the National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt5 and the claimant’s documentary evidence.

ALLEGATIONS

[4]       The following is a brief synopsis of the allegations that the claimant put forth in the BOC.6 The claimant alleges that as a gay male, he will be persecuted if he returns to Egypt. In 2011, the claimant made contact with someone through a social media App, wherein they engaged in a sexual relationship. Immediately afterwards, four of his partner’s friend came into the room and physically assaulted him and threated to inform his family unless he paid extortion. He was able to escape and in an ensuing confrontation, the police intervened and the claimant, along with his abusers, were detained overnight. The claimant was subject to an anal exam to “prove” that he was not homosexual. The claimant escaped Egypt by finding employment in Saudi Arabia. The claimant returned to Egypt in 2018. Shortly thereafter, he met someone on social media, they had sex and then his sexual partner took out a knife and threatened the claimant. Eventually, the claimant fled to Canada wherein he made his claim for refugee protection on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.

DETERMINATION

[5]       The panel finds that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Identity

[6]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Egypt is established by his sworn statement in his Basis of Claim form and the certified copy of the Egyptian passport on file.7

Nexus

[7]       In rendering this decision, the panel has considered the claimant’s sexual orientation as a gay male. Accordingly, the panel finds there is a nexus between the claimant’s sexual orientation and his fear of returning to Egypt since he has membership in a particular social group.

Credibility

[8]       The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the “Board”) presumes claimants are telling the truth, which is a rebuttable presumption. The panel is allowing this claim primarily on facts that are self-evident. Additionally, the claimant provided corroborative documents to establish country conditions relating to people fearing SOGIE-related persecution.8 Additionally, the claimant provided numerous documents to substantiate his sexual orientation.9

Objective Basis

[9]       It is apparent from the country condition documents that the government of Egypt has an extremely poor human rights record, and as per the United States (U.S.) Department of State (DOS) report for Egypt for 2017:

The most significant human rights issues included arbitrary or unlawful killings by the government or its agents; major terrorist attacks; disappearances; torture; harsh or potentially life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; including the use of military courts to try civilians; political prisoners and detainees; unlawful interference in privacy; limits on freedom of expression, including criminal “defamation of religion” laws; restrictions on the press, internet, and academic freedom; and restrictions on freedoms of assembly and association, including government control over registration and financing of NGOs. LGBTI persons faced arrests, imprisonment, and degrading treatment. The government did not effectively respond to violence against women, and there were reports of child labor.

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.

Attacks by terrorist organizations caused arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life. Terrorist groups conducted deadly attacks on government, civilian, and security targets throughout the country, including places of worship and public transportation. Authorities investigated terrorist attacks.10

[l0]      Furthermore, elsewhere in the document, the U.S. DOS report indicates “that the government did not consistently implement the law effectively, and officials sometimes engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.”11

[11]     A Board document, Egypt. State-Sponsored Homophobia,12 states that “sexual relations between consenting adult persons of the same sex in private are not prohibited in Egyptian law. However, as recorded the Law on the Combating of Prostitution, and the law against debauchery have been used liberally to imprison gay men in recent years.” Offenses include detention of not less than six months to a maximum of five years.

[12]     Another Board document, Egypt. Dignity Debased,13 includes first-hand accounts of undignified and debased treatment of accused by security officials. The documents states that since 2013 there have been increased arrests and harassment of people perceived to be gay or transgender.

[13]     The panel finds the risk of persecution for the claimant in Egypt well founded due to his sexual orientation.

State Protection

[14]     As the agents of persecution that would target the claimant are the government authorities of his country conducting inherently persecutory acts, the panel does not find it would be reasonable for the claimant to seek state protection from persecution in his country of nationality.

Internal Flight Alternative

[15]     It would be unreasonable to assess an internal flight alternative anywhere in Egypt given the lack of adequate security protection in that country.

CONCLUSION

[16]     The panel finds the claimant is a Convention refugee and accepts his application for protection.

(signed)           DOUGLAS CRYER  

JANUARY 21, 2019

1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

2 Policy on the Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division, effective date September 18, 2015.

3 Exhibit 2.

4 Exhibit 1.

5 Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Egypt, June 29, 2018.

6 Exhibit 2.

7 Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1 – Certified copy of Passport.

8 Exhibit 4.

9 Exhibit 5.

10 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

11 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 2.1.

12 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 6.1.

13 Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 6.2.