Citation: 2019 RLLR 207
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: October 25, 2019
Panel: Camille Theberge Ménard
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Melissa Singer
Country: Egypt
RPD Number: MB9-05861
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2020-00518
ATIP Pages: 003114-003121
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is an Egyptian citizen. She is claiming refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
[2] According to her account, the claimant fears for her life should she return to Egypt because of death threats received from her mother and her paternal uncle, who wish to restore the family honour.
[3] Throughout the hearing and its analysis, the panel took into account and applied Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution (November 1996)1 and Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB.2
DETERMINATION
[4] In response to a request from the claimant’s counsel, the panel found that the claimant was a vulnerable person within the meaning of the Chairperson’s Guideline 8. No particular procedural accommodations were requested other than applying the Guideline requirements. The panel notes that only women were present in the hearing room and that the panel took care to adopt an informal approach.
[5] The panel determines that the claimant is a “Convention refugee” for the reasons set out below.
ALLEGATIONS
[6] The claimant’s full allegations can be found in her response to question 2 of her Basis of Claim Form and the attached appendices.3 Here is a brief summary.
[7] The claimant comes from a traditional Muslim family that she describes as very conservative. She states that, when she was eight or nine years old, her mother forced her to submit to female genital mutilation.
[8] The claimant was married, in a marriage arranged by her family, in 2013. However, in 2017, her husband decided to divorce her, despite her mother’s entreaties that he remain married to the claimant.
[9] After her divorce, the claimant realized that she was pregnant and decided to return to Cairo to find a solution to secure some of her investments.
[10] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant had to make an emergency visit to a physician, who had to terminate her pregnancy. A few days later, the claimant went to the United States for four months. She returned to Cairo believing that she would be able to carry on with her life as usual.
[11] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, a neighbour who had seen the claimant’s physician and learned that she had had to terminate a pregnancy called her family’s home to find out how she was doing.
[12] After learning this, the claimant’ s mother and uncle beat her violently and forcibly confined her from that moment on in the family home. The claimant’s uncle threatened to inflict more serious injuries on her for having, in his opinion, dishonoured the family, implying that she deserved to die.
[13] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, a friend of the claimant’s helped her escape from her home.
[14] During the night of XXXX XXXXtoXXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, the claimant took a flight to the United States.
[15] Upon arriving in the United States, she claimed asylum and was detained by the American authorities.
[16] The claimant was successful in her credible fear interview and was in a state of shock; she was not released until XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018.
[17] On XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019, the claimant arrived in Canada illegally and signed this claim for refugee protection on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2019.
[18] She alleges that no state protection is available to her in Egypt and that she has no internal flight alternative (IFA) because of her family’s connections with the police.
ANALYSIS
Identity
[19] The claimant’s identity and the country of reference were established on the basis of her testimony and the documents filed, including a copy of her Egyptian passport contained in the record.4
Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
[20] The panel examined whether this claim could meet the criteria of section 96 of the IRPA. The claimant fears being killed because of her family members’ religious and cultural beliefs, according to which she dishonoured her family by becoming pregnant out of wedlock. Her fear is therefore connected to her status as a woman from a Muslim family.
[21] There is a nexus to one of the five Convention grounds, namely, membership in a particular social group, that of women in Egypt, as well as religion, because of her failure to comply with certain Islamic religious precepts.
Credibility and serious possibility of persecution
[22] The panel finds that the claimant testified in a credible manner throughout the hearing. The panel did not identify any major, determinative contradictions or any omissions regarding the important elements of the reasons she fears being persecuted should she return to Egypt.
[23] The claimant was able to explain the events she alleged and respond to the panel’s various concerns. Throughout the hearing, the claimant was very emotional and was visibly quite troubled by the situation and her experiences since leaving Egypt.
[24] Despite the many events described in her account and the panel’s deconstructed approach to asking questions, the claimant was able to respond to the panel’ s questions in a satisfactory manner. She also had no trouble explaining certain inconsistencies arising from the written version of her account.
[25] The claimant filed various documents in support of her allegations.
[26] The first is a sworn statement from the friend who supported her and helped her escape from her family home on XXXX XXXX XXXX 2018, after she had been forcibly confined there for about a week.5
[27] The next is a statement from another old friend of the claimant’s, in whom she had confided about the domestic abuse she had suffered at the hands of her mother and uncle for several years.6 She also produced a statement from her brother describing the moment when he and the claimant’s parents had returned to the family home and discovered that the claimant had fled.7 He also confirmed the history of family violence to which the claimant’s mother and uncle had subjected her for years.
[28] The panel did not identify any credibility issues with these documents, which were submitted along with identity documents for each of the authors. In the circumstances, the panel grants each of them the appropriate probative value.
[29] The objective evidence supports the claimant’s allegations that women are victims of violence when they defy religious precepts that are often imposed by their families and sanctioned by society at large. First, according to the sources consulted, it appears that the simple fact of not wearing a veil, when one is from a Muslim family and in society in general, may lead to daily harassment.8 Some sources indicate that “violence against women seems to be socially legitimized and surrounded by a [UN English version] ‘culture of silence’.”9
[30] Honour crimes, as defined by United Nations expert groups, remain relatively socially accepted in Egypt and are seemingly still a common practice within the most traditional families.10
[31] For these reasons, the panel gives credence to the claimant’s allegations and concludes that, if she were to return to Egypt, she would face a serious possibility of being persecuted by her mother or her uncle for disobeying certain Islamic religious precepts.
State protection and internal flight alternative
[32] The panel concludes that the claimant has rebutted the presumption and would not have access to adequate state protection in Egypt, in light of the objective documentation on the country.
[33] The documentary evidence indicates not only that there is no particular prohibition condemning domestic violence against women, but also that, while domestic violence may fall under certain provisions of the penal code relating to bodily harm, various procedural impediments render such provisions ineffective for all practical purposes.
[34] In practice, it appears that prosecutions are extremely rare and that it is even fairly complicated to file a complaint with the police as a basis for prosecution.11
[35] Thus, impunity surrounding violence against women is an ongoing issue,12 to the point that Foreign Affairs states that a woman who wants to report a harassment incident to police “is required by law to catch her attacker and bring him and two other witnesses to the police” (Foreign Affairs 27 Jan. 2014). The same source quotes a representative from HarassMap as saying that women “regularly ‘have to fight with the police to actually make the report, in the street, and at the police station'”.13
[36] Moreover, with respect to honour crimes, it is indicated that the provisions of the penal code do not protect victims:
Though the Penal Code is the primary law for the prosecution of perpetrators of violence against women including “honour killings”, in practice it often serves as a means to mitigate punishment. As noted above, Article 17 of the Penal Code provides broad judicial discretion to reduce sentencing in circumstances where leniency is “necessitated”. Judges have found “honour killings” to be “justified” on the basis that the victim allegedly violated prevailing social values or brought shame to the family. Article 237 of the Penal Code specifically enables judges to lower the sentencing in murders prompted by adultery.14
[37] The panel also examined the question of whether a reasonable IFA exists for the claimant in Egypt. The objective evidence does not show that the situation for people in the same circumstances as the claimant is different in other parts of the country.
[38] Furthermore, the claimant stated that her father is ex-military, her uncle is a former government secret intelligence officer, two of her mother’s cousins are ex-military, and some of their children are former police officers and two are presently working as police officers. The claimant managed to obtain a copy of an identity document belonging to her father establishing that he was formerly a member of the military.15
[39] The documentary evidence clearly indicates that corruption and nepotism are problems within the national police service16 and that corruption is an ongoing problem among law enforcement officials. A document entitled “Fighting corruption or protecting the regime? Egypt’s Administrative Control Authority” written in February 2019 contains the following passage:
But state corruption hardly ended with Mubarak’s ouster. Fraudulent self-enrichment by high level and lower-level officials alike remains widespread across the vast bureaucracy. Many Egyptians say they have to pay a bribe to receive government services. Donors continue to point to corruption as an obstacle to foreign investment and economic development. Transparency International said of the situation in 2018, “very few improvements exist on the ground” and “serious corruption issues are currently challenging the country.”17
[40] In the circumstances, the panel concludes on a balance of probabilities that, if the claimant were to return to her country, her agents of persecution would have an interest in locating her anywhere in the country and would have the capacity to do so. Accordingly, no IFA is available to her.
Conclusion
[41] In light of the foregoing, and after reviewing all the evidence, the panel determines that the claimant has discharged her burden of establishing that she would face a “serious possibility” of persecution on a Convention ground if she were to return to Haiti. The panel concludes that she would not have access to state protection in Egypt or to a viable IFA.
[42] For these reasons, the refugee protection claim is allowed.
(signed) Camille Théberge Ménard
October 25, 2019
1 Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution. Effective date: November 13, 1996.
2 Chairperson’s Guideline 8: Procedures With Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB. Guideline issued by the Chairperson pursuant to paragraph 159(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protecton Act. Effective date: December 15, 2006. Amended: December 15, 2012.
3 Document 1 – Information package provided by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and/or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC);
Document 2 – Basis of Claim Form.
4 Document 1 – Information package provided by CBSA/IRCC.
5 Document 6 – Exhibit C-2: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s friend, XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX2019.
6 Document 6 – Exhibit C-3: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s friend, XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX 2019.
7 Document 6 – Exhibit C-4: Duly translated statement (Declaration) from the claimant’s brother, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, dated XXXX XXXX-2019.
8 Document 3 – Archive – National Documentation Package (NDP) for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 5.1: Response to Information Request (RIR) EGY105005.E, November 26, 2014, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).
9 Document 3 – Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 5.5: RIR EGY104706.FE, December 23, 2013, IRB.
10 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present. Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt. Equal Rights Trust. December 2018, at page 232/399.
11 Document 3 – Supra, footnote 9.
12 Document 3 –Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 2.1: Egypt. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018. United States. Department of State. March 13, 2019. Pages 41 to 45.
13 Document 3 – Supra, footnote 8. At page 5/8.
14 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 2.9: A Past Still Present. Addressing Discrimination and Inequality in Egypt. Equal Rights Trust. December 2018. At page 232/399.
15 Document 6 – Exhibit C-7: Duly translated National Identity Document of the claimant’s father, XXXX XXXX.
16 Document 3 – Archive – NDP for Egypt, March 29, 2019, Tab 9.5: The State of the Justice and Security Sector in Egypt. Migrationsverket. Lifos. September 10, 2015. At pages 41 et seq.
17 Document 3 – NDP for Egypt, September 30, 2019, Tab 7.4: Fighting Corruption Or Protecting The Regime? Egypt’s Administrative Control Authority. Project on Middle East Democracy. Jessica Noll. February 2019.